IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 10966 of 2011 Between: Yellakonda …PETITIONER AND APSRTC and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 10966 of 2011 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 respondents in terminating the petitioner through proceedings No.P1/1(34)/2007-VKB, dated 20.09.2007, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. 2. The writ petitioner has been appointed in the year 2007 as a contract Driver in the respondents Corporation. While he was performing his duties as Driver, his services were terminated by respondent No.2 on the allegation of unauthorised absenteeism from 09.08.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner informed respondent No.2 that he is unable to attend his duties due to illness. Thereafter, respondent No.2 without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, terminated his services. Hence, the writ petition. 3. In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by order, dated 07.12.2010, in W.P.No.30611 of 2010, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with immediate effect and it is also made clear that the petitioner is not entitled any back wages, or other monetary benefits in pursuance of this order and it shall be open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action, in accordance with law, if they so intend. The point involved in the present case is almost similar. Therefore, there is no impediment in granting the relief of continuity of service only. 4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed giving continuity of service only and making it clear that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary or any other benefits and giving liberty to the respondents to initiate departmental proceedings if they so advised against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 20, 2011 YVL