IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18855 OF 2011 Between: D.V. Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, APSRTC, Hyderabad Division, CBS, Hyderabad & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18855 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings, dated 28.04.2011, as re-instatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. 2. The writ petitioner has been appointed on 14.03.2007 as a contract Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in Hyderabad City region. While he was performing as such in the Corporation, his services were terminated by the 2nd respondent on the allegation of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the 1st respondent explaining that while he was performing his duty on 12.10.2010, a motor cyclist tried to over take a mini bus and after observing the bus, he applied sudden brakes due to which the motor cycle and was fallen down due to skid; that the petitioner took the bus extreme left side to avoid the accident and his bus was already got down from the road in the left side, and so, he was not responsible for the said accident. The said appeal was considered and the 1st respondent ordered for his re- engagement by impugned proceedings, dated 28.04.2011, as contract Driver. In pursuance of the same, he was reinstated into service and he was performing his duties as usual. The grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing orders of re- engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service and hence, the petitioner’s name was not shown in the list of candidates for regularisation. Hence, the writ petition. 3. In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by order, dated 04.03.2011, in W.P.No.5365 of 2011, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein that the petitioner therein shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement only for the purposes of regularisation in the existing or future vacancies; that, however, the petitioner therein shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. 4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 6th July, 2011. KL/GK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18855 OF 2011 6th July, 2011 KL/GK