HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11313 of 2011 Date: April 21, 2011 Between: K.Naga Bhushanam … Petitioner And 1. A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. By its Vice Chairman & Managing Director and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11313 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 office order No.L4/785(414)/2010-GHZ, dated 10.02.2011, of the 2nd respondent in denying the continuity of service with all attendant benefits as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to re- engage the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularization. 2. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 2006 as a Contract Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). While he was performing his duties as such in the Corporation at Jeedimetla depot, his services were terminated by the Depot Manager, by office order, dated 31.01.2008, on the allegation of unauthorised absenteeism to duty. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed W.P.No.25959 of 2010 and the same was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 20.10.2010 directing the respondents to reinstate him into service with immediate effect without any back wages with a liberty to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with law, if they so intend. Thereafter, the respondents reengaged the petitioner into service by order, dated 10.02.2011 and posted to Jeedimetla Depot. But, unfortunately, 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 01.03.2011, in W.P.No.5038 of 2011, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement only for the purpose of regularisation; and that, however, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said order. 4. But, insofar as the relief of regularization, it cannot be granted to the petitioner by this Court. It is for the respondents to take appropriate decision for regularization of the services of the petitioner in accordance with the rules, regulations and circulars governing the service conditions of the petitioner. This relief of regularisation is left open to be considered by the respondents. 5. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed granting the relief of continuity of service to the petitioner making it clear that in pursuance of this order, petitioner is not entitled to monetary or any other benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 21, 2011. LMV