IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 8982 of 2011 Between: S.Yesaiah …PETITIONER AND APSRTC and another. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 8982 of 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed to issue a writ or Mandamus declaring the action of the proceedings No.PA/20(178)/2008-SR, dated 20.07.2009 of respondent No.2 in denying the continuity of service with all attendant benefits, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents to reengage the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularization. 2. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a driver. After some time, he was terminated from service on the ground that he partially responsible for the accident. No enquiry was conducted before the order of removal was passed. Subsequently, he came to be re- engaged on the basis of the orders passed by the appellate authority. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that while issuing orders of re-engagement by revisional authority, the respondents did not extend the benefits of continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of re-engagement. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through an order, dated 12.04.2010, this Court had taken a view that the contractual employees, who are re-engaged on the orders of removal, are entitled to the benefit of past service. There is no other reason to deviate from the finding given by this Court with regard to extending the benefit of continuity of service as sought for. Even otherwise, termination on the ground of causing accident is not shown to have been caused due to the negligence of petitioner. From the record, it clear that a motorcyclist along with two pillion riders came in a good speed on a motor cycle from the right side of the bus under influence of liquor and lost control over the bike on seeing a ditch and came into contract with the body of the bus resulting the death of motorcyclist. The same was accepted by the revisional authority. As it is not a case where the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the petitioner, a lenient view can be taken. 5. Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of the service between the date of termination and the date of re- engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary or any other benefits on account of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 11, 2011 YVL