IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.30216 OF 2010 DATED:02.12.2010 Between: A. Sankar … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Regional Manager Guntur Region, Guntur District and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.30216 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Driver on contract basis, on 06.5.2005 in Tenali Depot of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The Depot Manager, Tenali, the second respondent herein, passed order dt.02.3.2009, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner caused an accident and was shown as accused in a case registered under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, Guntur, the first respondent herein. By order dt.13.7.2009 the first respondent has set aside the order of termination and directed that the petitioner be engaged as driver on contract basis afresh, by imposing certain conditions. The petitioner has since been acquitted in C.C. No.136 of 2009, in which he was tried for the offence under Section 304- A of IPC, by the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, through judgment dt.4.3.2010. The petitioner contends that the second respondent did not follow the procedure prescribed by law and the order of termination is untenable. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis. However, he ought not to have been removed from service without following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Regulations. In Writ Petition No.8118 of 2010, this Court by order dt.13.4.2010 held that the respondents are under obligation to follow the procedure that is applicable to regular employees also whenever action is taken against the contract employees. Strictly speaking, the matter has to go back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner was acquitted of the charge against him, and the first respondent has already directed his reinstatement, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for the benefit of past service rendered by him for the purpose of regularization and other benefits, but not any back wages. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 02.12.2010 bnr