IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 3 4 5 1 6 OF 2011 Between: R.Seetaiah … Petitioner V/s. The Regional Manager, APSRTC Secunderabad Region, Picket Secunderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Madhava Reddy SC for A.P.S.R.T.C. The Court made the following : (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 3 4 5 1 6 OF 2011 O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent-corporation. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as a contract conductor is arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the re- engagement of the petitioner with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits including regularization and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a contract driver in APSRTC on 15-6-2005 at Ranigunj-II Bus Depot and since then he was discharging the duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. While so, he was removed from service on 05-8-2005 on the ground of absenteeism from 01-8-2005 onwards without intimation. It is stated that due to ill-health and financial problems, he could not attend the duties and that there is no intention to loss the corporation. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know that he was terminated from service w.e.f. 05-8-2005 without giving any notice to him and without following the procedure contemplated under CCA Rules. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Sanathnagar Division but the same was rejected on 26-6-2011. Assailing the said order, he filed a revision before the first respondent on 27-6-2011 and the same was partly allowed as a fresh candidate by order dated 30-6-2011. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that while ordering re-engagement the respondents did not mention the word continuity of service and therefore his name was not considered and he is being paid fresh salary. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this court allowed WP.No.10001 of 2011 on 15-4-2011, whereunder this Court by order dated 24-12-2010 in WP.No. 32579 of 2010 allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or any other benefits in pursuance of this order. 5. I am of the considered opinion that as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed in WP.No.10001 of 2011, dated 15-4-2011. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed in terms of the said order. 6. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 29-12-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 34516 OF 2011 CIRCULATION NO. 29 Date:29-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43