HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11259 of 2011 Date: April 21, 2011 Between: T.Narasimha … Petitioner And 1. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11259 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.PA/19(167)/2009-SNG, dated 21.01.2010, issued by the 2nd respondent in denying the continuity of service and all attendant benefits as illegal and arbitrary and with a direction to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including regularisation. 2. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 as a contract Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). While he was performing as such in the Corporation at Medchel depot, his services were terminated by the Depot Manager, by office order, dated 17.08.2009, on the allegation of unauthorised absenteeism to duty from 31.05.2009 to 17.08.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that due to his ill health he could not attend the office and that he also informed about his health condition to his higher authorities. The Depot Manager, without issuing the charge sheet; conducting the departmental enquiry; or issuing the show cause notice, terminated him from service by issuing the proceedings, dated 17.08.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Divisional Manager, on 09.12.2009 against the order of termination. The 2nd respondent by order, dated 21.01.2010, considered his appeal and ordered for re-engagement as fresh driver, but denied all other benefits. Hence, the writ petition. 3. In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by order, dated 01.03.2011, in W.P.No.5038 of 2011, 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 only for the purpose of regularisation; and that, however, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. 4. The relief of regularization cannot be granted by this Court to the petitioner. It is for the respondents to take appropriate decision for regularization of the services of the petitioner in accordance with the rules, regulations and circulars governing the service conditions of the petitioner. This relief of regularisation is left open to be considered by the respondents. 5. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed granting the same relief to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 21, 2011. LMV