HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30282 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011 Between: B.D.Prasad. …Petitioner. And: The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation represented by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30282 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in ordering fresh reengagement of the petitioner as Contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the corporation circulars and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings No.PA/19(35)/11-RM/VSP dated 7-7-2011 as reengagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as Contract Conductor on 20-5- 2006 in East Godavari Region and subsequently, was transferred to Visakhapatnam Region and was attached to Narsipatnam APSRTC Depot. On an allegation that he was involved in an assault case with one of his colleges, he was terminated by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager on 15-9-2006, against which, he preferred a review before the 1st respondent-Regional Manager against the above orders and the 1st respondent-Regional Manager by proceedings dated 7-7- 2011 has reinstated him into service as a Contract Conductor afresh to the present place where the petitioner is working. The order of the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager in terminating him without any enquiry and without giving notice and opportunity is illegal. 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. 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.27593 of 2011. The said writ petition in W.P.No.27593 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner therein for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent therein in ordering fresh re-engagement of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent 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 29-10- 2009 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits. By order dated 30-9-2011, 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 for 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 this relief. There shall be no order as to 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.30282 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011