Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties.
(2.) THIS petition seeks quashing of an order dated 8 July 2006 passed by the fourth respondent turning down the claim of the petitioner for being granted the relief of reinstatement and other benefits flowing from being treated as being in continuous service from 2002. A further relief has been sought in the petition for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service on the post of Peon in the Hathgaon Branch of Bank of Baroda. The petitioner asserts that he was engaged as a daily wager in the Hathgaon Branch of the Bank of Baroda from 29 October 1985 and worked in such capacity for a period of 775 days upto January 1990. It is submitted that on 15 August 1991 the bank issued an advertisement indicating its decision to draw up a panel of persons who had been working on temporary basis between 1.1.1982 and 31.12.1990 as a peon for a period of 90 days or more for consideration of their cases against future temporary or permanent vacancies. It is contended that the petitioner was subsequently appointed on 1 October 1991 pursuant to the above advertisement issued by the bank. It further transpires that a case of robbery occurred at the branch which led to initiation of criminal prosecution in which the petitioner was also arraigned as one of the accused. A charge sheet was submitted against various persons including the petitioner herein. However, the Sessions Judge passed judgment dated 19.8.2004 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly rendered a judgment of acquittal. It becomes relevant to note here that consequent to the incident which took place in the branch on 18 March 2002, the petitioner was taken into custody and came to be disengaged from service. His claim for being reinstated on the post was not acceded to and accordingly he petitioned this Court seeking the relief of reinstatement by filing Writ Petition No. 20272 of 2006. This petition appears to have been preferred after the judgment came to be rendered by the Sessions Judge on 19 August 2004. The above petition came to be disposed of with directions calling upon the fourth respondent to pass an order on the claim of the petitioner within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order of this Court. It is pursuant to the above directions that the order dated 8 July 2006 has come to be passed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made initially on daily wages in 1985 as a consequence of which he worked for 775 days. It is his submission that the petitioner worked during the period 1.1.1982 and 31.12.1990 and was clearly eligible to be considered for appointment in terms of the advertisement issued on 15 August 1991. He would submit that the appointment conferred upon the petitioner on 1.10.1991 was pursuant to the above policy of the respondent bank. It is submitted that subsequent to the acquittal of the petitioner on 19 August 2004, he was entitled to be reinstated on the post and granted all consequential benefits.;