THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :12998 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswary, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. The petitioner, who is working as driver on contract basis in the respondent-corporation, filed this writ petition questioning the order of termination in proceedings No.01/781(1)2008-KDR dated 25.08.2008 passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadiri Depot, Ananthapur District, the third respondent herein, as confirmed by the Executive Director (K & N), APSRTC, Hyderabad the first respondent herein, as illegal and arbitrary. In this writ petition the petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis in the respondent-Corporation in the year 2006. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was given appointment on contract basis, the respondents have followed the regular selection process while making selections. In the corporation as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. When the petitioner was serving as a contract driver during the year 2008, he was absent for his duty on 20.08.2008. On the ground that there was a strike notice given by the APSRTC Employees Union on 20.08.2008 and basing on the report of the Assistant Manager, Kadiri to the effect that the petitioner was absent to the duty on 20.08.2008, his services were terminated by the third respondent vide order dated 25.08.2008. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive Director, the first respondent herein, who in turn, accepting the plea of the petitioner that he was absent from duty as he was suffering from viral fever on the said date, passed orders appointing him as contract driver without specifying as to the fresh appointment or with continuity of service. It is stated that pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the petitioner was reinstated into service as a fresh candidate in 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the member of APSRTC Employees Union or the Staff and Workers Federation, but he was absent for duties since he was suffering from viral fever. The third respondent passed the order of termination, without issuing any notice and without conducting any regular enquiry. It is also submitted that even the first respondent, who is the appellate authority, instead of allowing the appeal as prayed for, ordered fresh appointment. In view of the same, the petitioner deprived of the seniority in the category of contract drivers, which is being taken into consideration for the absorption into regular service. The learned counsel placed reliance on the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that identical matters were disposed of by this Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner, keeping it open to the respondents to conduct regular enquiry as per law, and requests to dispose of the writ petition on the same lines. I have perused the copy of termination order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the third respondent and also the order of the appellate authority. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the third respondent, it is evident that though the termination was passed on the allegation of unauthorized absence for duty on 20.08.2008, the petitioner was not issued any notice or conducted any enquiry before passing the order of termination. Even the appellate authority, though accepted the plea of the petitioner that he was suffering from viral fever, instead of allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of termination, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner afresh. As such the order of termination is illegal and the same was not preceded by any notice or enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seniority in the category of contract drivers from the date of his initial appointment. The judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner also supports the case of the petitioner. For the afore said reasons and following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009 dated 23.03.2009 and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner was already reinstated into service, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to extend the benefit of seniority to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as contract driver. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is not entitled to any monitory benefits. It is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 10th June, 2010 Js.