HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10081 of 2010 Dated: 31-05-2010 Between: G.Srinivasa Rao. … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, West Godavari Region, Eluru & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10081 of 2010 ORDER: The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in not ordering re- engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver, is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, 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 1st respondent proceedings, dated 20.01.2009 as re- engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularisation.” The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis, in 2005 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). It is stated that though the appointments are made initially on contract basis, but such appointments are made after following the due procedure prescribed for selection of regular candidates, and as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons employed on contract basis will be absorbed into regular service, as and when the vacancies arise. When the petitioner was rendering his services on contract basis, on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties from 21.01.2008 onwards, his services were terminated by an order, dated 05.04.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.E2/1(31)/2008- ELR. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-Regional Manager. The Regional Manager, by an order, dated 20th January 2009, passed in proceedings No.PA/675(81)/2008-RM-WG, has set aside the order of termination, but directed to re- engage the petitioner as a fresh Driver on contract basis. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service, but however, while preparing the list of contract Drivers eligible for regularisation of service, the respondents have not included the petitioner’s name in the said list, but they have included the names of his juniors. Hence, he has filed this writ petition. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as he was appointed after following regular procedure for selections, and as the termination was on the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, respondents ought not to have terminated him from service without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice to him. It is submitted that in any event, the appellate authority, while setting aside the order of termination, has erroneously ordered for re-engagement of petitioner as a fresh Driver on contract basis, due to which, he is losing his seniority in the contract service, for the purpose of absorption into regular service in the Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as no inquiry is conducted by the primary authority on the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence, the appellate authority ought to have allowed the appeal as prayed for. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of this Court, dated 23rd of March 2009, passed in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. Even the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has fairly conceded that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. I have also perused the order of termination. From a perusal of the order, it is evident that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity before passing the order of termination. As much as the petitioner was appointed after following the regular process for selection, when his services are to be terminated, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to conduct inquiry before passing the order of termination. Even the appellate authority has not considered the appeal in proper perspective and has ordered for re-engagement of petitioner as a fresh Driver on contract basis. In the same circumstances, this Court has already allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of termination, dated 05.04.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.E2/1(31)/2008-ELR, and the order, dated 20th January 2009, passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.PA/675(81)/2008-RM-WG, are set aside, to the extent of engaging the petitioner as a fresh contract Driver. As it is stated that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service, he shall be given the benefit of seniority in contract service and is entitled to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Drivers, appointed along with him. It is also made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. At the same time, it is also made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefit towards arrears of salary. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st May 2010 ghn/ajr