IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18823 OF 2011 Between: Jaya Varalaxmi ..... Petitioner AND The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Sanathnagar Division, Kukatpally, Hyderabad & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18823 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 bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and against to the corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings, dated 23.03.2011, 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 was appointed on 10.11.2008 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 cash and ticket irregularity after conducting departmental enquiry. Therefore, she filed an appeal before the 1st respondent explaining that she had not committed any irregularity that she was having Rs.9/- denomination punched two tickets in her tray. In fact, she had not sold the alleged two tickets which were kept in her tray. The said appeal was considered and the 1st respondent ordered for her re-engagement by proceedings, dated 23.03.2011, as contract Conductor. Subsequent to that, she was reinstated into service and she was performing her duties as usual. But, while issuing orders of re-engagement, the 1st respondent 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 04.03.2011, in W.P.No.5365 of 2011, allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents therein that the petitioner therein shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement only for the purposes of regularisation in the existing or future vacancies; that, however, the petitioner therein shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. 4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 6th July, 2011. KL/GK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18823 OF 2011 6th July, 2011 KL