IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 302077 OF 2011 Between: M. Chittodu … Petitioner V/s. APSRTC Represented by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.M. Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K. Madhava Reddy Standing Counsel for Respondents The Court made the following : (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 30277 OF 2011 O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the ﬁrst respondent in ordering fresh re-engagement of the petitioner as contract driver is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, as the termination of the petitioner by the third respondent is against the principles of natural justice and against the Corporation circulars and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the ﬁrst respondent’s Proceedings No. PA/19(31)/2010-RM/VSP dated 29- 12-2010 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service beneﬁts and to grant such other suitable orders as this Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Contract Driver on 30-09-2008 and attached to Visakhapatnam Depot. While so, it is alleged against the petitioner that he caused an accident on account of rash and negligent driving and that he was terminated as contract driver by Proceedings No. M1/2(12)/VSP, dated 02-12-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was dismissed on 25-01-2010 vide Proceedings No. PA/19(2)10-VSK (R) and thereafter the petitioner preferred a review before the ﬁrst respondent and the ﬁrst respondent by Proceedings No.PA/19(31)/2010-RM/VSP dated 29-12-2010 ordered re-engagement of the petitioner into the services of the Corporation as Contract Driver afresh. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Sri R.M. Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following due process of law and without issuing any notice the petitioner was terminated from service though he was a contract driver. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service. Since non-granting of continuity of service is illegal and bad in law. 4. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the termination order passed by the respondents is by following due process of law and also by conducting necessary enquiry. Therefore, it is not a ﬁt case to consider the case of the petitioner and that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 30-09-2011 passed in WP.No.27593 of 2011. The petitioner in the said case sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the ﬁrst respondent in ordering fresh re-engagement of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, as the termination of the petitioner by the third respondent is against the principles of natural justice and against the corporation circulars and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the ﬁrst respondent’s Proceedings APSRTC No. PA/19(66)RM/VSP dated 29-10-2009 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service beneﬁts. In the said case, this Court by order dated 13-09-2011 allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner is entitled to the beneﬁt of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary beneﬁts on account of this relief. In the instant case, the petitioner was terminated as contract driver by Proceedings No. M1/2(12)/VSP, dated 02-12-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was dismissed on 25-01-2010 vide Proceedings No. PA/19(2)10-VSK (R) and thereafter the petitioner preferred a review before the ﬁrst respondent and the ﬁrst respondent by Proceedings No.PA/19(31)/2010-RM/VSP dated 29- 12-2010 ordered re-engagement of the petitioner into the services of the Corporation as Contract Driver afresh. In that view of the matter, following the order dated 13-09-2011 passed in WP.No. 27593 of 2011 by the learned single Judge of this Court, it is directed that the petitioner is entitled to the beneﬁt of the service between the date of termination and the date of re- engagement. However, the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits on account of this relief. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- ---------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH. 29-11-2011 I s L. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 30277 OF 2011 CIRCULATION NO. DATE: 29-11-2011 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43