HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8909 of 2010 Dated: 20-04-2010 Between: M. Shankarji. … Petitioner And The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8909 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not regularizing his services, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to consider his case for regularisation/appointment on the regular time scale of the Conductor. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis in 2006 in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and is posted in the 2nd respondent Depot. Though initially his appointment was on contract basis, but the same was made after undergoing the regular selection process. As per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the selected candidates, at first instance, are appointed on contract basis and they are absorbed into regular service as and when the vacancies arise. When the petitioner was in service as a Contract Conductor, by an order, dated 29.10.2008, his services were terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal/review before the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Division. It was the case of the petitioner before the appellate authority that he could not attend to the duties, as he was attending to his ailing mother, and therefore, the same cannot be treated as unauthorized absence. The appellate authority, by an order, dated 11.11.2008, allowed the appeal, but directed the petitioner to enter into a fresh agreement of contract service. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as he was not given any opportunity before passing the order of termination by the preliminary authority, the reviewing authority should have allowed the appeal filed by him. It is his grievance that by not extending the benefit of service of his contract employment, he is deprived of the benefit of regularisation. The learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010, dated 12th of April 2010. This Court, in similar such matters, where the services of contract employees are terminated on the alleged misconduct without conducting any inquiry and without giving opportunity, the said orders are set aside with a direction for reinstatement. Even a perusal of the impugned order of the primary authority also shows that there is no indication of issuance of any prior notice and opportunity to the petitioner. While it is true that the service of the petitioner is on contract basis, but the order of termination is not termination simpliciter. When the termination is based on the alleged misconduct, respondents cannot dispense with his services without conducting any inquiry and giving notice. For the aforesaid reasons and also following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010, dated 12th of April 2010, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the appellate authority to the extent of directing the petitioner to enter into fresh agreement. Respondents are further directed to extend to the petitioner, all the benefits which were extended to the similarly placed contract employees, who were appointed along with him. However, it is made clear that if there is any mis-conduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not prelude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th April 2010 ajr