JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In this accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to absorb/regularize his services on the present working post i.e. Canteen boy/messanger because he is serving since long and dispose of the recommendation of the respondent no.3 which has been illegally withheld by the higher authority while the similarly situated persons have been regularized. 2. The brief facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that petitioner is working since 1990 till date and the name of the petitioner has been recommended by the authority concerned to appoint the petitioner as ''Messanger'' vide letter no.BR No.29/34 dated 01.09.1993 and letter no.21/81 dated 01.09.1993 vide Annexures-1 and 1(a) to the writ application. It has further been averred that since the petitioner was appointed on the said post against the sanctioned and vacant post his name was again recommended by the authority concerned for absorption vide Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ application. It has been submitted that petitioner is still continuing his services under the respondent Bank at Gumla Branch of State Bank of India as a Peon/Messanger. It has also been averred in the supplementary affidavit dated 30.10.2017 that this writ petition was once dismissed for non-prosecution on 06.01.2011 and, therefore, a fresh writ petition for the same relief being W.P.(S) No.720 of 2014 was filed. However, this Hon''ble Court vide order dated 30.08.2016 dismissed the same with direction that petitioner may file application for restoration of the earlier writ application. Being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondent authority ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption on the post of Canteen boy/messanger because the petitioner is serving since 1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authority is against the principles of natural justice and is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no.3, repelling the averments made in the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authority is against the principles of natural justice and is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no.3, repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed as subordinate staff/messanger temporarily for three month and services was terminated in the month of December 1993. The petitioner has drawn last salary from the respondent-Bank on 01.12.1993 and thereafter the petitioner never worked either as temporary worker or as a daily wage employee. Although in the year 1998 the petitioner started working with the canteen contractor as Canteen boy and the respondent-Bank has got no concern with his working in the canteen, thus the writ application as filed by the petitioner is misleading and is fit to be rejected. It has been stated that except the recommendation by two of the managers there is nothing with the petitioner like attendance register and pay slip to prove that he ever worked on daily wages after November, 1993. 5. A counter affidavit dated 17.01.2018 has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, wherein it has been stated that this Hon''ble Court vide order dated 30.08.2016 dismissed the W.P.(S) No.720 of 2014 as contained in Annexure-S/1 to the supplementary affidavit and not accepted the same. Since for the same relief, another writ application being W.P.(S) No.720 of 2014 was filed, in which, petitioner has changed his stand that he is a canteen boy/messanger working as a daily wages which is contradictory and not permissible and therefore, it is fit to be rejected. It has further been submitted that as per the letter dated 11.12.2013 as contained in AnnexureS/3, the Chief Manager has categorically stated that at present Branch is not having any temporary staff on its roll. That goes to prove that petitioner is not working as a temporary staff in the Bank and that is the reason he has not annexed any salary slip issued by the respondent-bank towards his wages, which proves that the petitioner is not a temporary employee of the respondent-Bank rather he is a canteen boy. 6. That goes to prove that petitioner is not working as a temporary staff in the Bank and that is the reason he has not annexed any salary slip issued by the respondent-bank towards his wages, which proves that the petitioner is not a temporary employee of the respondent-Bank rather he is a canteen boy. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that petitioner was appointed as subordinate staff/messanger temporarily for three month and his services was terminated in the month of December 1993. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that petitioner never worked either as temporary worker or as a daily wage employee, hence prayer of the petitioner for absorption on the post of Canteen boy/messanger cannot be considered. 7. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not brought out any foundational facts so as to be entitled for absorption in the respondents-Bank, due to the following facts and reasons: (I) Indisputably, the petitioner way back in the year 1993 worked as subordinate staff/messanger temporarily for a period of three months. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated and the last pay drawn by him was on 01.12.1993 and thereafter the petitioner never worked either as temporary worker or as a daily wage worker in the respondentBank. As disclosed from the counter affidavit the petitioner only worked as a ''Canteen boy'' under the Canteen Contractor and working under the Canteen Contractor does not give indefeasible right to the petitioner to claim for absorption in the Bank. In a similar context, the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Workmen of The Canteen of Coates of India Ltd. vs. Coates of India Ltd. and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 547 has been pleased to inter alia hold that workmen employed in such a canteen whether employees of the establishment or of the contractor, taking cue of that analogy the petitioner in the instant writ application cannot be considered as staff of the State Bank of India. (II) Apart from that the petitioner has solely relied upon the recommendation which does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed as a registered employee of the respondent-Bank. 8. (II) Apart from that the petitioner has solely relied upon the recommendation which does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed as a registered employee of the respondent-Bank. 8. In that view of the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the relief sought for by the petitioner for absorption in the State Bank of India is thoroughly misconceived due to lack of foundational facts, such as, engagement on daily wage or temporary basis in the bank post-1993. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.