THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 34222 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of issuance of mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.St/660(39)/2007- RM(NLR) dated 10.03.2008, in so far as denying continuity of service having set aside the order of termination passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.M1/1(20)/07-NLR-2, dated 12.12.2007, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to regularize services of petitioner with effect from 01.01.2010, instead of 01.01.2011, with all attendant benefits. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The facts of the case, in brief, are:- The petitioner was appointed as Driver on contract basis on 05.05.2005 and his services were terminated by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings dated 12.12.2007 for unauthorized absence. On appeal before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent by Proceeedings dated 10.03.2008 re-engaged the petitioner in service afresh, without any continuity of service. It is stated that similarly placed employees who joined service along with the petitioner were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010 and, but the services of the petitioner were regularized by order dated 01.01.2011. Further, it is stated that no enquiry was conducted while terminating his services and later on, he was re-engaged and regularized in service setting aside termination proceedings and therefore, he is entitled for continuity of service on par with his colleagues. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not giving the benefit of continuity of service, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent, while setting aside the termination proceedings issued by the 3rd respondents, ordered re-engagement of the petitioner, but not granted continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of re-engagement. He further submits that similarly situated persons who have been appointed in 2005 and working in the respondent-Corporation on contract basis were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010, and that the case of petitioner falls in the same category of those employees. Placing reliance on the order dated 08.11.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27536 of 2010, the counsel submits that in the said W.P., the contract drivers whose were initially terminated and later on re-engaged were given the benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of re- engagement. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation submits that the petitioner is already re- engaged and his services are regularized with effect from 01.01.2011, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought for in this writ petition. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as driver on contract basis on 05.05.2005. On 12.12.2007, his services were terminated and, on 10.03.2008, the petitioner was re-engaged afresh without continuity of service. This Court, by order dated 08.11.2010 in the W.P.No.27536 of 2010, observed that:- “Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through order, dated 12.04.2010, 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 the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. There shall be no order as to costs.” In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.27536 of 2010, this writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement, but without any monetary benefits for the said interregnum period. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 30th December, 2011 KSM