IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29916 of 2011 Between: J.Bhaskar … Petitioner and APSRTC., Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29916 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation. Questioning the impugned order dated 13.08.2007, wherein the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism, present writ petition has been filed. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on contract basis as Conductor in the respondents Corporation in the Hyderabad city Region on 02.01.2007, through due process of selection by the Selection Committee constituted by the 1st respondent. While working in the 4th respondent’s depot, he applied leave on 26.07.2007 intimating that his father and his wife fell sick and went to his native place to look after them. When he came back to report for duty on 10.08.2008, he was informed that the contract employees will not be granted any leave and thereafter, issued impugned order dated 13.08.2007, terminating the services of the petitioner while treating the period from 26.07.2007 to 13.08.2007 as unauthorized absenteeism. The impugned order dated 13.08.2007, reads as under: “Sri J.Bhaskar, S/o. J.Subbaiah, C.14143, Contract Conductor of Rejendranagar depot was absent for his duties without intimation w.e.f. 26.07.2007 to till date as per the report of TI-II/RJNR depot. In terms of Clause 5 of agreement executed by the party, his services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. He need not attend the depot hereafter.” The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of termination issued by the 4th respondent, Depot Manager, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. He also submitted that this Court in similar circumstances observed and passed the order on 09.09.2010 in W.P. No.22588 of 2010, which reads as under: “This Court took the view that the very terms of the contract indicate the Service Regulations issued by the Corporation applied to such employees also and in a batch of writ petitions, the orders of termination passed by the Corporation without issuing show cause notice and without conducting domestic enquiry were set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith, but he shall not be entitled to be paid back wages. It shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, if they still fell that the same is necessary. There shall be no order as to costs.” Therefore, he sought to grant the similar relief in the present writ petition. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that the petitioner was terminated from service by impugned order dated 13.08.2007 and he approached this Court in the year of 2011. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. However, he does not dispute that in a similar circumstances, this Court allowed the workman for re-engagement and for providing service benefits, considered the period for which he rendered the service in the Corporation. One of such order copy is placed before this Court i.e. W.P. No.4106 of 2011. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned standing counsel and following the order dated 22.02.2011 passed in W.P. No.4106 of 2011 and also following the order dated 09.09.2010 passed in W.P. No.22588 of 2010, the impugned order dated 13.08.2007 is set aside on the ground of principles of natural justice and consequently, the respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner into service forthwith, but he shall not be entitled to be paid back wages. Further, the respondents are also directed to give the benefit of service rendered by him in the Corporation, from the date of his engagement till the date of passing of impugned termination order, for his future benefits. Further, it shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, if they still feel that the same is necessary. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 10.11.2011 LSK