HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.10002 of 2011 Date: April 15, 2011 Between: K.Y.Laxmamma … Petitioner And 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.10002 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 action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings, dated 12.11.2010, as re-instatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. 2. The writ petitioner has been appointed in the year 2006 as a contract Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in Hyderabad city region. While she was performing as such in the Corporation, her services were terminated by the 2nd respondent on the allegation of absenteeism from 01.03.2008 to 19.04.2008. Subsequent to that, she filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager and the same was rejected. Therefore, she filed a review petition before the Regional Manger i.e., 1st respondent explaining that as she met with an accident with one motor cycle, she got injured on her right leg and was directed to RTC Hospital for treatment; that the RTC authorities also sanctioned 45 days leave to her; that as the fracture did not get heal she went to Kepal for further treatment and, therefore, she could not attend the duties. The said review was considered and the 1st respondent ordered for her re-engagement by proceedings, dated 05.04.2010, as contract Conductor. Subsequent to that, she was reinstated into service and she was performing his duties as usual. 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 24.12.2010, in W.P.No.32579 of 2010, 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. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or any other benefits in pursuance of this order. 4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 15, 2011. LMV