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.31214 of 2011 Between: D.Lakshmi Bai … Petitioner And The Divisional Manager, Secunderabad Division, RBS, Secunderabad, A.P., and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.31214 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings dated 19.12.2009 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization. The petitioner was engaged as contract Conductor in the respondents Corporation and later on she was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism. Thereafter, she filed an appeal wherein she was re-engaged. 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 15.09.2011 passed in W.P. No.25553 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 15.09.2011 passed in W.P. No.25553 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