WA/746/2025 of STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs A PYDISETTY on 2 March 2026

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HEAD OFFICE KOTI HYDERABAD

2. DY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN), SBI, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION VISAKHAPATNAM

3. ASST GERA MANAGER (ADMN), SBI SIRIPURAM JUNCTION VISAKHAPATNAM

4. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI, VENKATESWARA METTA BRANCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. A PYDISETTY, S/o. Settiyya,

Aged about years, Ex.TemporaryAttender, State Bank of India, Venkateswara Metta Branch, Visakhapatnam, R/o. 60-26-22/1, Malkapuram, Prakash Nagar, Visakhapatnam

...RESPONDENT

IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned final order dated 29.01.2025 passed in W.P. No.17561 of 2012 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court of AP, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal, and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

WRIT APPEAL NO.746 of 2025 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 29.01.2025 in W.P.No.17561 of 2012.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred as arrayed in the writ petition for convenience.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The petitioner is working as Temporary Messenger on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,600/- per month with effect from 26.12.1988. He also worked as an Attender-cum-Sweeper till 30.04.2012.

5. It is the contention of the writ petitioner’s counsel that the respondent Authorities directed the petitioner orally not to attend duties from 01.05.2012. As the petitioner worked more than 22 years and he would not meet the age criteria for any job on account of crossing the age of 40 years as on the date of filing of the writ petition, he is constrained to challenge the illegal oral termination of the petitioner by filing the writ petition.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents at this stage, it is averred that the petitioner never worked for 240 days in any year and also disputed the claim of 22 years service by the petitioner in the respondent- bank. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot seek continuance in the employment and that the appropriate remedy would be available to approach the competent Labour Court.

7. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition and it is found that it is appropriate to direct the respondents to engage the services of the petitioner on temporary basis in any existing vacancy in any of the branches in Visakhapatnam city.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-bank filed the present writ appeal. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank would contend that now the bank is utilizing the manpower for petty works in the bank through the Manpower Agency on outsourcing basis and as such, the services of the petitioner are not required.

9. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants. It is settled law that one temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. Admittedly, the petitioner crossed 54 years and he worked more than 22 years in the respondent-bank as Messenger and Attender-cum-Sweeper for all these years. The action of the respondent-bank terminating his services orally with effect from 01.05.2012 is unreasonable and unjustified.

10. Admittedly, at the stage of admission of the writ petition, this Court by order dated 14.06.2012, directed the respondent-bank to continue the services of the petitioner as an Attender in the respondent No.4-bank, pending further orders. Thereafter, by an order, dated 26.07.2013, the interim orders were modified, whereby the respondents were given liberty to engage services of the writ petitioner in any of the branches located in Visakhapatnam city, wherever work is available. The record also reveals that this court by order, dated 29.01.2021, directed the learned Standing Counsel to ascertain the vacancy position in Visakhapatnam district. Though sufficient time is granted, the proper information is not placed before this Court.

11. Under these circumstances, considering the record, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent-bank to engage services of the petitioner on temporary basis in any existing vacancy in any of the branches in Visakhapatnam City.

12. In our considered view, no interference is required with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Considering the fact that the writ petitioner had worked as a temporary employee in the respondent- bank for more than 22 years and now he crossed the age of 54 years and for his survival also the continuation of the petitioner in the respondent-bank is very much essential to maintain his family.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

14. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date:03.03.2026 SA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 746/2025 Date: 03.03.2026

SA