IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.31063 of 2011 Between: M.Goverdhan Reddy … Petitioner And APSRTC, Represented by its VC & MD., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.31063 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 08.05.2009 of the 2nd respondent in denying the continuity of service with all attendant benefits, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and further direct the respondents to re-engage the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularization. The petitioner was engaged as Driver on contract basis in the respondents Corporation and later on he was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absent. Subsequently, he came to be re- engaged on the basis of the orders passed by the appellate authority. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing orders of re-engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing a copy of the order dated 27.04.2011 passed in W.P. No.12264 of 2011, submitted that this Court had dealt with identical issue and directed that the petitioner therein was entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation does not dispute the same. In that view of the matter, following the order dated 27.04.2011 passed in W.P. No.12264 of 2011, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service rendered between the date of termination and the date of re- engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits in pursuance of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 25.11.2011 LSK