Dismissed

B.Appala Raju v. The Andhra Bank

Telangana HC1 Jun 2009WP/4984/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This constitutional writ petition challenged the bank's refusal to regularise eleven petitioners despite a settlement. The court dismissed the petition by relying on a prior identical order, upholding the bank's obligation to employ staff proportionate to leave vacancies under the rotation methodology.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground that there is no merit and the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the earlier order in identical circumstances.

B.Appala Raju Vs The Andhra Bank — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 4984 of 2001

¶4

Between:

¶5

1 B.Appala Raju S/o. Late Buttayya D.No.7-1-199, Moningi Street, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District.

¶6

2 K.Jaya Sankara Rao S/o. late K.Neelakantam

¶7

Maruthi Nagar, 1st Street, Narasannapeta Post, Srikakulam District.

¶8

3 V.Vykunta Rao S/o. late Narasimha Murthy Chinnabaratam Street, D.No.11-8-88, Srikakulam.

¶9

4 V.V.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o. V.V.Ranga Rao

¶10

V.K.Peta, Ichapuram, Srikakulam District.

¶11

5 K.Appalanaidu S/o. late Challayya Getal Deppi Street, Palakonda Post, Srikakulam District.

¶12

6 P.Appala Raju S/o. late Surayanarayana

¶13

D.No. 6-9-(1)-3, Kella Street, Srikakulam.

¶14

7 K.Suri Babu S/o. late Gopalam

¶15

C/o. Padmavati Nilayam, Punyapu Street, Srikakulam.

¶16

8 V.Harinadha Rao S/o. Satya Rao Akkivalasa (V), Amadalavalasa (Post), Srikakulam District.

¶17

9 B.Venkateshwara Rao S/o. late Appala Swamy Mandavakvriti (V), Via Ponduru, Srikakulam.

¶18

10 P.Venkata Rao S/o. late Asriyya C/o. P.Seetha Ramudu, Andhra Bank, Rajam.

¶19

..... PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

1 The Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

¶22

2 The Andhra Bank, Rep. by its General Manager (HRD), Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶23

.....RESPONDENTS

¶24

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction of the like nature declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to discharge their duties in spite of withdrawal of circular No.230, reference No. 3/46 dated 12.10.2000 by circular No. 300, reference No. 3/61, dated 18.12.2000 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and issue consequential direction to the respondents to regularise/absorb the petitioners forthwith in the respondent bank with all benefits.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.KESAVA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶28

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶29

Writ Petition No.4984 of 2001

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶32

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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:-

¶33

“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

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

For all these reasons, there are no merits in the

¶38

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.”

¶39

Since the petitioners herein are also similarly situated, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above order. No costs.

¶40

_______________ 01.06.2009

¶41

VGB

B.Appala Raju v. The Andhra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Appala Raju v. The Andhra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakumani Educational Society, 4-11, Bazar STreet, Vs Bar Council of India, rep. by its Chairman

G. Malyadri, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

T. Pradeep, Vs Osmania University

K.Veera Babu, Vs Andhra Bank

M/s. Granules India Limited, paracetamol Division, Vs The Commissioner of Labour Government of A.P.

Mrs P.Kalavathi, Vs Staley Girls High School