The high court disposed of a writ petition seeking declaration of the dispensation of the petitioner's services as illegal and directing his absorption as a regular employee. The court held there were no merits in the petition.
The writ petition was disposed of; no relief granted to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12095 of 2001
Between: K.Veera Babu, S/o.Guruvulu, R/o.Tuni, East Godavari District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (1) declaring the Circular No.230 dated:12.10.2000 issued by the Ist respondent and the consequential action in dispensing with the services of the petitioners with effect from 13.10.2000 as illegal and arbitrary (2) declaring that the petitioners are entitled for absorption in the cadre of sub-staff in the respondent bank and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners as regular employees in the service of Andhra Bank in the cadre of substaff with all attendant benefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KAKARAVENKATA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA
The Court made the following ORDER:
THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Writ Petition No.12095 of 2001
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in identical circumstances, W.P.Nos.20764 and 22061 of 2000 were disposed of by this Court by order, dated 27.12.2007, holding as under:-
“On a true and fair construction of the settlement, in particular paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, it is clear that the panel to be prepared is a panel that is to operate till the absorption of the last of the empanelled candidates. It is also clear that absorption would be as and when vacancies in sanctioned posts arise. The settlement neither expressly nor by any compelling implication warrant or obligate the creation of new posts or sanction of new posts to forthwith accommodate all temporary empanelled employees. Paragraph No.8 (c) of the settlement as already stated, does not obligate the bank to continue any casual empanelled temporary sub-staff (empanelled in terms of paragraph No.7 of the settlement) until absorption into regular vacancies. Paragraph 8 (c) merely ensures that the bank should employee the empanelled temporary sub-staff proportionate to the availability of leave vacancies and on rotation.
In the affidavit in opposition filed in these writ petitions, the bank has clearly and categorically admitted its obligation to continue in temporary service those empanelled candidates who are yet to be absorbed subject to availability of leave vacancies and on rotation basis. The bank has also pleaded that the rotational methodology is adopted to ensure equitable
opportunity to all the empanelled sub staff, as the availability of leave vacancies is lesser than the number of temporary sub-staff available for such casual engagement. The bank’s counter affidavit also states that the impugned circular dated 12-10-2000 is not intended to be in subversion of any of the bank’s obligations under the settlement dated 09-01-1995.
In the circumstances above, there appears no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners that they would not be absorbed in terms of the settlement dated 09-01-1995 or would be disengaged forthwith irrespective of the availability of leave vacancies in the districts to which each of the petitioners respectively belong. The petitioners claim for immediate absorption has also no basis in the settlement.
For all these reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition. Recording the averments, admissions and statements made by the respondent-Andhra Bank in the counter affidavit, as have been extracted above, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.”
Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above order. No costs.
_______________ 01.06.2009
VGB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate absorption as a regular employee.
Whether the impugned circular dispensing with services is illegal and arbitrary.
Whether the bank's obligations under the 1995 settlement require continuation of temporary staff regardless of leave vacancies.
K. Veera Babu
Andhra Bank
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
