ORDER :

Heard Sri S. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the order dated 31.03.2020 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioners for counting the period of their temporary service prior to their absorption into permanent service of the respondent bank from 2012 onwards for the purpose of grant of service benefits, the Circular dated 26.03.2013 issued by the Bank to the extent that the temporary service prior to absorption shall not be counted as service for any other benefits except for payment of gratuity, and the Regulation No.15 of Andhra Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 to the extent that it excludes the counting of period of service prior to the date of appointment on permanent basis for qualifying service, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 7 to 9, late husbands of petitioner Nos.10 to 12 and petitioner Nos.13 to 16 worked as sub-staff in various branches of the respondent Bank and retired from service. Petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are still in service of the Bank. All of them belong to Scheduled Caste community. In the year 1982, they were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and accordingly, the Bank conducted interviews for all of them and prepared a panel of 78 candidates in the year 1986 for filling up the future temporary or permanent vacancies. Out of 78 candidates, 10 of them belonging to other communities were appointed on permanent basis and when the Bank sought to cancel the remaining list, the petitioners objected to the same. Then, the Bank issued letters of temporary appointment to them in the year 1986 promising to absorb them as permanent sub-staff in the year 1995. Thereafter, a settlement dated 09.01.1995 was arrived at between the Bank and the Andhra Bank Award Employees Union, Hyderabad. As per the said settlement, the Bank empanelled all the eligible employees including the petitioners for absorption. Accordingly, during the years 2001 to 2009, the Bank appointed the petitioners on permanent basis.

i) Due to the absorption in regular basis, petitioner Nos.1 to 9, late husbands of petitioner Nos.10 to 12, while working as sub-staff, submitted representations dated 25.05.2009 and 05.08.2012 to the respondent Bank requesting to count the period of their temporary service till their absorption into permanent service of the Bank for the purpose of grant of service benefits. As no action was taken by the Bank, they were compelled to file W.P.No.33969 of 2012. By an order dated 20.02.2020, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent Bank to dispose of the representations of the petitioners within a period of four weeks. In compliance of the orders of this Court, the respondent Bank vide proceedings dated 31.03.2020 considered and rejected the representations of the petitioners on the grounds that the claim of the petitioners is not in consonance with the terms of the settlement dated 09.01.1995; more so, as per circular dated 26.03.2013, the service put in by the erstwhile panel sub-staff shall not be counted as service for any other benefits except for payment of gratuity; in fact, as per Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, the qualifying service of an employee shall be counted from the date of his taking charge of the post for which he is first appointed on permanent basis and hence, there is no question of counting past service rendered during the temporary period for the purpose of pension. The same is questioned in this writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and stating that the petitioners are workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since they were available with an alternative remedy under the said Act, they cannot invoke the extraordi