THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12377 of 2010 Date: 02.06.2010 Between : P. Sridhar … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region, A.P.S.R.T.C., M.G.B.S., Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12377 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”). 2. This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.PA/20(67)/2010-HR, dated 22.4.2010, issued by the 1st respondent in ordering fresh re-engagement of the petitioner as Driver as arbitrary and illegal since the termination order and rejection orders passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondents, respectively, are contrary to the Circulars issued by the Corporation and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services by treating the re-engagement orders of the 1st respondent with continuity of service with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Driver on contract basis in the respondent-Corporation on 28.12.2006. It is stated that though the appointment was given on contract basis, the same was made after following the due selection process as per the Recruitment Regulations of the Corporation. It is stated that as per the practice in vogue, at the first instance, the appointments will be made on contract basis and as and when vacancies arise, such appointees will be absorbed in the said regular vacancies. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was discharging duties as Driver on contract basis, by proceedings dated 8.4.2008, issued by the 3rd respondent his services were terminated on the ground that he remained unauthorisedly absent for duties from 1.4.2008 to 7.4.2008 and also for 68 days during the period from October, 2007 to March, 2008. When the petitioner questioned the said order of termination before the 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority, the said appellate authority also simply rejected the case of the petitioner by proceedings No.PA/19 (C-2)/2010-DVM/CR, dated 11.3.2010, thereby confirming the order of the primary authority. As against the said orders, the petitioner carried the matter to the 1st respondent, who is the revisional authority, and the 1st respondent by proceedings No.PA/20(67)/2010-HR, dated 22.4.2010, ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner afresh as Driver on contract basis. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that by virtue of the orders passed by the 1st respondent re-engaging him afresh as Driver on contract basis, the petitioner is deprived of his seniority in the category of contract drivers and other service benefits. He also submits that inasmuch as no enquiry was conducted and no notice was issued before terminating his services, the 1st respondent ought to have directed for his re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits. Hence the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the allegations are made against the petitioner that he remained unauthorisedly absent, no enquiry was conducted and no notice has been issued to the petitioner before passing the order of termination. It is also contended that the revisional authority also did not consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subject matter is covered by a judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.5429 of 2010, dated 10.3.2010, wherein under identical circumstances, the writ petition was allowed by extending the continuity of service and all consequential benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed contract employees. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation also agrees that the subject matter is covered by the above said judgment of this Court and requested to dispose of the present writ petition on similar lines. 9. I have perused the copy of the termination order passed by the 3rd respondent and also the order passed by the 2nd respondent-appellate authority as well as the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent-revisional authority. Though the allegation is made to the effect that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duties, no enquiry was conducted and no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner to put-forth his case before passing the order of termination. 10. Further, though the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, it is not a termination simplicitor, it is a termination attaching the allegation of unauthorized absence. In which event, the respondents have to necessarily issue notice and conduct enquiry before passing the order of termination. 11. In that view of the matter, following the order dated 10.3.2010, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5429 of 2010, this writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned order dated 22.4.2010 passed by the 1st respondent and the respondents are directed to extend the petitioner the benefit of continuity of service and all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract employees. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits. It is also made clear that if there is any unauthorized absent by the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry and take necessary action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 02.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12377 of 2010 02.06.2010 (Msr)