APHC010499072005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15688 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-21 [3506] Sutti Venkata Rao ...Petitioner Vs. Punjab National Bank and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. K. R. S. Prakash Rao appearing vice Mrs. A. V. S. Laxmi Advocate for Respondents : - CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 17th February 2026 P C : The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in not allowing the petitioner to continue his duty as a driver and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate him back to service. 2. The petitioner stated to have been engaged as a driver with the then Global Trust Bank in the month of December, 1999, with a pay of Rs.2,500/- per month. He had discharged duties till the year, 2005. In the year, 2004-2005, the Global Trust Bank got merged with Oriental Bank of Commerce. The petitioner claims that he was continued as a driver even by the successor i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce and was paid a salary of Rs.2,750/- per month. However, abruptly he was discontinued from services with effect from 01.07.2005. The petitioner then made a representation to the 2 CGR, J W.P.No.15688 of 2005 respondents seeking continuation of services, however, the same was not considered. On account of the same, he preferred the present writ petition. 3. It is stated that even when the Oriental Bank of Commerce later got merged with the Punjab National Bank, the petitioner has come up with appropriate amendment application for substitution of the party respondents and the same has been allowed by this Court. Mr. K. R. S. Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner has been properly engaged as driver and has been working with the Global Trust Bank, under the scheme of transfer, all the existing employees were deemed to have been continued to serve with the successor i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce and, therefore, the respondents could not have disengaged the services of the petitioner, which is clearly illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that even the successor also allowed the petitioner to continue to work as a driver and paid salaries, but, however, they abruptly stopped the petitioner to attend his duties with effect from 01.07.2005, without any prior notice. 4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit inter alia denying employer-employee relationship. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has not produced any appointment letter issued by Global Trust Bank, and it is also denied that, under the scheme of amalgamation, the petitioner was continued to serve with the successor Bank. It is stated that some of the executives of the then Global Trust Bank were permitted to engage part-time drivers, and 3 CGR, J W.P.No.15688 of 2005 the petitioner was one such driver appointed by an individual executive but not by the Bank, and as such, contended that the very writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Perused the record. 6. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a driver by the then Global Trust Bank. In support of the same, he has filed a self-styled appointment letter. A perusal of the said document goes to show that the same is not in the format of any appointment order with terms and conditions of service, rather it is a hand written paper without any specifics, and even the signing authority is also not clearly mentioned. In opinion of this Court, the document which is placed on record as one of the exhibits cannot be construed as an appointment letter as such issued by the then Global Trust Bank. 7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this Court that the petitioner continued in service from the year 2000 till 2005, there is nothing on record to establish that he was directly appointed by Global Trust Bank and continued on payrolls. Even otherwise, though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the scheme of arrangement envisaged continuation of the existing employees, no document has been filed to show that the petitioner name figures in the list of employees who were continued under the said scheme of arrangement so as to claim any 4 CGR, J W.P.No.15688 of 2005 right to continue in service with the successor bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 5 CGR, J W.P.No.15688 of 2005 152 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.P.No.15688 of 2005 Date: 17.02.2026 kbs