IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30440 of 2011 Between: A.S. Reddy … Petitioner and The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Rangareddy Region, MGBS., Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30440 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as causal driver, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and against to the corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent proceedings dated 14.07.2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as casual Driver on 30.01.2003, through a regular selection process in Rangareddy region. While so, he was terminated from service by order dated 29.04.2009 on the ground of absenteeism for the period from 07.10.2008 to 11.10.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, who dismissed the appeal. Assailing which, the petitioner filed review before the 1st respondent, Regional Manager, who ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 14.07.2010 as contract driver and as of now, he is in service. His grievance is that his juniors’ names were mentioned in the list for regularization but his name was not mentioned in the said list prepared for regularization on the ground that the word continuity of service was not mentioned in his re-engagement proceedings. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original authority, without following due process of law, terminated the services of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority but the reviewing authority ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner without granting continuity of service. He also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court extended the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization. In support of his contention, he placed a copy of the order passed in W.P. No.22850 of 2011 and W.P. No.12325 of 2011. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner herein may also be extended the similar benefit. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that the petitioner was removed from service on the allegation of unauthorized absenteeism and this termination order was passed after conducting enquiry into the charges leveled against him. On filing the appeal, the appellate authority had also considered his case and rejected but the reviewing authority, taking into consideration the length of absenteeism, which is meager, and also taking lenient view on humanitarian ground ordered for re-engagement. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation and perused the material on record. Facts are not in dispute and the main grievance of the petitioner is that though he was re-engaged, his past service is not taking into account for regularization. As could be seen from the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.22850 of 2011, it is evident that the name of the petitioner therein was deleted from the selected list and thereafter, ordered for re- engagement on contract basis, afresh. Assailing which, the petitioner therein filed W.P. No.22850 of 2011 and this Court passed the following order: “It is no doubt true that the respondents have followed the procedure prescribed under the Regulations before an order directing deletion of the name of the petitioner was passed. The allegation against the petitioner was that he remained absent to duties from 14.03.2010 till 09.04.2010. One serious error, which this Court noticed is that the Regulations do not provide for deletion of the name from the approved list. Though the respondents contend that it is equivalent to removal from service, unless the Regulations also provide for it, one cannot undertake equations. The petitioner was granted some relief by the appellate authority. The past service rendered by the petitioner would certainly be helpful for him in seeking regularization of services. This Court is of the view that he can be extended the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization and not for other purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed directing that the petitioner shall be reinstated into service without back wages. However, he shall be entitled for the benefit of past service in the limited context of regularization of service and it shall not be counted for any other purpose, nor the petitioner shall be entitled for any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs.” In the aforesaid order, this Court categorically extended the benefit of past service for the purpose of regularization but for not any other purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed another copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.12325 of 2011, wherein this Court, in similar circumstances, extended the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re- engagement only for the purpose of regularization. In that view of the matter, the petitioner herein is also entitled to the benefit of past service for the purpose of regularization. Following the said two orders, this writ petition is partly allowed with the following direction. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed directing 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, only for the purposes of regularization. However, he shall not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits in pursuance of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 05.12.2011 LSK