JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner entered in the services of the respondent No.1, being appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 21 st April, 1990. The nomenclature of the post on which appointment was given to the petitioner was subsequently changed as Banking Assistant. The respondent Bank terminated the petitioner from service on 24th June, 1991. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred a petition for writ before this Court, which came to be disposed off on 24th November, 1997. By the order aforesaid, this Court set aside the order of termination and further directed the respondents to re-examine case of the petitioner for the purpose of regularisation in service in accordance with law. 2. In pursuance to the direction given by this Court on 24th November, 1997, the Managing Director of the respondent Bank passed an order dated 24/29th July, 1998 making fixation of the petitioner's pay at Rs.3320/- in the regular pay scale. No need was there to pass specific order of reinstatement as the petitioner was already continuing in the service in pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court in the earlier petition for writ filed by him. The respondents, after making fixation of the petitioner in the regular pay scale, allowed him all annual grade increments and also made fixation of his pay in subsequent corresponding revised pay scales. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not placing the petitioner in regular cadre of Banking Assistant and are also not determining his seniority from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 21st April, 1990. In reply to the writ petition, stand of the respondents is that appointment of the petitioner as Clerk-cum-Cashier was de hors the Rules and as such, was erroneous, therefore, he is not entitled for placement in regular cadre of Banking Assistant.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner is working with the respondent Bank since 24th April, 1990. In the year 1991, respondent Bank discontinued him from service, however, as a consequence of interim order passed by this Court, no effect was given to the order of termination. Subsequently, the petition filed by the petitioner came to be accepted by this Court by setting aside the order of termination. The respondents acted upon directions given by this Court and allowed regular pay scale to the petitioner and for all purposes, they are treating the petitioner a regular employee. Subsequently, the petition filed by the petitioner came to be accepted by this Court by setting aside the order of termination. The respondents acted upon directions given by this Court and allowed regular pay scale to the petitioner and for all purposes, they are treating the petitioner a regular employee. This fact is substantiated in the manner fixation of petitioner's pay was made in subsequent revised pay scales and by grant of annual grade increments. 4. It is true that in pursuant to directions given by this Court on 24th November, 1997, no specific order is passed by the respondent Bank regarding regularisation of petitioner's service but from conduct of the respondents it can very well be inferred that by passing the order dated 24th July, 1998, respondents regularised the petitioner in their service. In view of it, petitioner is certainly required to be treated in the regular service of the respondents from 24th July, 1998, the day on which respondents made fixation of his pay in regular pay scale. The respondents are, as such, required to consider the petitioner Banking Assistants in regular cadre of the Bank. The seniority of the petitioner is also required to be reckoned as such. 5. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as regular Banking Assistant and further to reckon his seniority in the cadre with effect from 24th July, 1998.No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******