HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.11663 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011 Between: B.S.Rao. …Petitioner. And: The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur Region, Guntur District, A.P., and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.11663 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and 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 proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12-7-2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as Contract Driver in the year 2005, through a regular selection process in Guntur Region. At present, he has been working in APSRTC, Guntur-Bus Depot, Guntur District A.P., While he was performing his duty in the respondent- Corporation, he was terminated from service by office order dated 24-6-2008 on the allegation of involvement in an accident. Subsequent to that, he filed an appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager-1st respondent. He was acquitted in the said accident case in C.C.No.245 of 2008 on the file of the 6th Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. In turn, the 1st respondent ordered for his re- engagement by his proceedings dated 12-7-2010 as afresh contract driver. Subsequent to that, he has been re-instated into service and was performing his duties as usual. Recently, the respondent-authorities prepared a list for regularization of services of Contract Driver. But unfortunately, his name was not considered since 1st respondent ordered reinstatement of his services without continuity of service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been reinstated into service, his case has not been considered by giving the continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of reengagement. Apart from that, since his case has not been considered in respect of continuity of service, his name was not considered for regularization of his services. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is squarely covered by an unreported order of this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.32579 of 2010. The said writ petition in W.P.No.32579 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner therein for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent therein in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner therein is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent proceedings dated 2-9-2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization. By order dated 24-12-2010, this Court allowed the said writ petition observing as under: “Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through order, dated 12-04-2010, this Court held that the contractual employees, who are re-engaged on the orders of removal being set aside, are entitled to the benefit of past service. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. No costs. There is no dispute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the above order of this Court. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and consequently, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re- engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of this relief. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 16-11-2011. Note: Issue C.C. today. BO Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.11663 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011