HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32658 of 2011 Dated 14-12-2011 Between: M.Srinivas. …Petitioner. And: The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Secunderabad Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32658 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat 1st respondent proceedings, dated 6-4-2011 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as Contract Driver through a regular selection process in the month of February, 2006 in Hyderabad City Region. At present he has been working in APSRTC Cantonment Bus Depot, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. While he was performing his duty in the respondent- Corporation, he was terminated/disengaged from service vide proceedings, dated 22-8-2006 on the allegation of absenteeism. Subsequent to that, he filed an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Secunderabad Division, but the same was rejected on 7-8-2010. Thereafter, he filed a review petition to the Regional Manager-1st respondent stating that due to serious ill-health of his uncle for which his wife also effected with mental tension, he was in attending hospitals to provide treatment to them, he could not attend his duties. By considering the grievance of the petitioner, the 1st respondent in turn ordered for his re-engagement vide his proceedings, dated 6-4-2011 as fresh contract Driver. Subsequent to that, he has been re-instated into service and has been performing his duties. Recently, the respondent authorities prepared a list for regularization of services of Contract Driver. The juniors to him were also placed in the list of the candidates for regularization. But unfortunately, ordering re-engagement without mentioning continuity of service by the respondents, his name was not considered for regularization. His termination order dated 22-8-2006 itself is illegal and void. Before imposing punishment of his termination, there was no charge sheet and no conduction of domestic enquiry. Such termination was declared as bad and illegal in many cases by this Court. Even the Corporation itself issued a Circular No.PD-05/2009, dated 23-2-2009 stating that enquiry is mandatory before termination of contract conductor/driver also. Hence, his termination is against to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- Corporation and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that due to the serious ill-health of his uncle for which his wife also effected with mental tension, he was attending hospitals to provide treatment to them, he could not attend his duties. Apart from that, before imposing punishment of his termination, there was no charge sheet and no show cause notice was issued and no domestic enquiry was also conducted and hence, the action of the respondent- authorities is bad and illegal. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is squarely covered by an unreported order of this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.25553 of 2011. The said writ petition in W.P.No.25553 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner therein for issuance of writ of mandamus with the following prayer: “to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal ,unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat 1st respondent proceedings, dated 25-11-2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization.” By order dated 15-09-2011, this Court allowed the said writ petition observing as under: “Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through order, dated 12-4-2010, this Court held that the contractual employees, who are re- engaged on the orders of removal being set aside, are entitled for the benefit of past service. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of 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. There shall be no order as to costs. There is no dispute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the above order of this Court. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and consequently, the order impugned is set aside and the respondent-authorities are directed to re-engage the petitioner into service. The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of 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. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 14-12-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32658 of 2011 Dated 14-12-2011