THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.30486 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not ordering re-engagement of the petitioner with continuity of service as contract driver as unjust and consequently, to direct the respondents to treat the order of the second respondent in proceedings No.ST/19(47)/10- Dy.CTM(GNT) dated 15.06.2010 as reengagement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that, initially, he was appointed as a Contract Driver in the first respondent Corporation on 01.04.2008 through due process of selection by the Selection Committee constituted, as per the APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, in Guntur Region and posted to Tenali Depot. The petitioner’s mother was sick and suffering from Cancer. The petitioner was attending to her treatment and could not attend duty on 04.04.2009. Though the petitioner informed the Traffic Supervisor about the treatment to be given to his mother and the requirement of the petitioner to attend her, the Traffic Supervisor reported the matter to the third respondent stating that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on 04.04.2009 and also not available for duties for 11 days during 01.01.2009 to 04.04.2009. On that, the third respondent issued charge sheet dated 07.04.2009 and without considering the petitioner’s explanation, ordered enquiry. Without following proper procedure, the Enquiry Officer gave report on 18.05.2009 and basing on the said report, the petitioner was terminated from service vide proceedings dated 23.09.2009. Against the said termination order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Having convinced with the reasons given by the petitioner, the second respondent set aside the order of termination dated 23.09.2009 and directed reengagement of the petitioner as fresh contract driver, without continuity of service and posted him to Guntur-I depot vide proceedings dated 15.06.2010. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by that portion of the order dated 15.06.2010 ‘without continuity of service’. This Court in similar cases, allowed Writ Petitions for continuity of service of the petitioners. One such Writ Petition is WP.No.25484 of 2011, copy of which is annexed to the present Writ Petition, wherein it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to count the past service for the limited purpose of regularization of his services and that he shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit on account of the same. Following the said judgment of this Court in WP.No.25484 of 2011, this Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to count the past service for the limited purpose of regularization of his services, as and when occasion arises and that he shall be not entitled for any monetary benefit on account of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 17th November 2011 RRB