APHC010490202017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 11756/2017 Between: 1. M. NARSAIAH, S/O. SIDDAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O. TIRUMALA PURAM, JANGAREDDY GUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA BANK, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL OFFICER, SULTAN BAZAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER ANDHRA BANK ZONAL OFFICE ELURU, - 3. THE MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, KOYALLAGUDEM BRANCH, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of respondents in issuing impugned proceedings Lr. No. 666/03/grat/71, dated 06.05.2016, rejecting the case of the petitioner for computing the temporary service of 24 years rendered by the petitioner, prior to absorption, for pension and other benefits, is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara's case and consequently set aside the same by directing to respondents, to compute the service of 24 years rendered by the petitioner prior to the absorption for pension and other benefits Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR AB) 2 The court made the following ORDER: The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following main prayer:- “……declaring the impugned action of respondents in issuing impugned proceedings Lr. No. 666/03/grat/71, dated 06.05.2016, rejecting the case of the petitioner for computing the temporary service of 24 years rendered by the petitioner, prior to absorption, for pension and other benefits, is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara's case and consequently set aside the same by directing to respondents, to compute the service of 24 years rendered by the petitioner prior to the absorption for pension and other benefits.…….” 2. Heard Sri K.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Bank authorities. 3. The core issue involved in the lis is whether the temporary service rendered by the petitioner for 24 years would come to the fixing eligibility of pension and other such terminal benefits or not. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the respondents’ Bank on 27.01.1986 as Sub-Staff and after his oral termination in the year 2000, he was reinstated into service pursuant to the interim orders dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Court in W.P.No.22541 of 2000. Ever since the reinstatement, the petitioner has been working in the respondents Bank and has completed 24 years of service. A representation dated 02.03.2016 was made by the petitioner for absorption of his 24 years of service in the 3 respondents Bank, the same was rejected vide impugned proceedings dated 06.05.2016, which is challenged in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that, in similar facts and circumstances, the matter fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.18793 of 2020, wherein, the Court after considering all the aspects came to a conclusion that the temporary service of the petitioners before their absorption may be included into service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and for gratuity by the respondents Bank. He prays the Court to issue necessary orders. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Bank has not disputed the aspect of passing of orders by this Court in W.P.No.18793 of 2020. He submits that if any fresh representation is preferred by the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed in terms of the settled legal position. 7. Apparently, the above referred W.P. No.18793 of 2020 was assailed in W.A.No.937 of 2023 by the respondents Bank and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal vide orders dated 10.07.2024, confirming the orders of the learned Single Judge. Further, the respondents Bank challenged the Judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench passed in W.A.No.937 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide orders dated 02.12.2024 in SLP(C) Diary No.52471 of 2024. 4 8. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and in the light of above legal position, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms:- i. The petitioner shall make a representation with all relevant documents with regard to his claim, to include the temporary service rendered by the petitioner, within a period of (4) four weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. ii. On such representation, the respondents Bank shall dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of (3) three months, in terms of the orders dated 18.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.18793 of 2020 of this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court vide orders 02.12.2024 dated in SLP(C) Diary No.52471 of 2024. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 20.12.2025 GVK 5 98 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.11756 of 2017 Date: 20.12.2025 GVK