Telangana Grameena Bank vs Telangana Grameena Bank,
2022 Latest Caselaw 628 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                       AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                  WRIT APPEAL No.2013 of 2017

JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     Learned counsel for the parties have informed this

Court    that     a   writ     appeal       i.e.,   W.A.No.2009             of   2017

(A.P.G.V.Bank Temporary Workers Union v. Andhra Pradesh

Grameena Vikas Bank and another) was preferred against the

same judgment before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and

the Andhra Pradesh High Court has disposed of the writ

appeal by judgment dated 25.02.2020.

     The judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High

Court arising out of the same judgment reads as under:-

             "This writ appeal is arising out of the order, dated
     30.11.2017, passed in W.P.No.27363 of 2017 by a learned
     single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed
     by the writ petitioner-union.
             It is seen from the record that the members of the
     writ petitioner-union, who are working on temporary basis
     in various branches of the respondent - bank, sought for

regularisation of their services, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi ((2006) 4 SCC 1).

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that regularisation of services of the members of the writ petitioner-union is required to be considered by the respondent-bank, in terms of its own norms and policies. Therefore, we are not inclined, at first blush, to issue any direction for their regularisation. In our considered opinion, it is suffice to dispose of the appeal with the following directions:

a) The members of the writ petitioners - union shall submit their respective claims to the respondent - bank

seeking regularisation of their services, along with the relevant material and judgments, within one month.

b) On production of such claims, the respondent-bank shall consider and decide the same, within two months from the date of receipt of the claims submitted by the members of the writ petitioner - union.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. No order as to costs."

Learned counsel for the parties are fair enough in

stating before this Court that a similar judgment be passed in

the present case also.

Resultantly, the present writ appeal stands disposed of.

The judgment delivered in W.A.No.2009 of 2017, dated

25.02.2020, shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the

present case also.

We have passed this judgment in order to maintain

consistency in the matter, as it was a common order in

respect of which a judgment has been passed by the Andhra

Pradesh High Court.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 14.02.2022 vs