STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. T N JAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS in Writ Appeal No. 6291 of 2000 were the respondents and the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 6565 of 2000 was the petitioner in writ Petition No. 2979 of 2000.

(2.) THE petitioner as well as the respondents in the said writ petition have called in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge has held that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition, however, has directed the respondents in the said petition to continue the services of the petitioner with a direction to the Bank to absorb the services of the petitioner in any of the vacancies of the post of messenger and in the event if there is no vacancy as on today, continue the services of the petitioner as a Messenger till the vacancy is created in the said post.

(3.) THE appellants (State Bank of India) in Writ Appeal No. 6291 of 2000 have called in question that part of the order wherein the learned single Judge has given the above direction. Writ Appeal No. 6565 of 2000 (the employee) has challenged that part of the order wherein the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that he had not worked continuously for a period of 30 days in a calendar year.