HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9949 of 2011 Date: April 15, 2011 Between: G.Sampath Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9949 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 action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings, dated 26.11.2010, as re-instatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. 2. The writ petitioner has been appointed in the year 2007 as a contract Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in Hyderabad City region. While he was performing as such in the Corporation, his services were terminated by the 2nd respondent on the allegation of absenteeism to duty from 12.01.2008 to 25.05.2008. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Sanathnagar Division, but the same was rejected on 26.04.2010. therefore, he filed a review petition before the Regional Manager, explaining that due to his father’s sudden demise, he could not attend the duties. The said appeal was considered and the 1st respondent ordered for his re-engagement by proceedings, dated 26.11.2010, as contract Driver. Subsequent to that, he was re-instated into service and he was performing his duties as usual. But, unfortunately, while issuing orders of re-engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service and hence, the petitioner’s name was not shown in the list of candidates for regularisation. Hence, the writ petition. 3. In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by order, dated 24.12.2010, in W.P.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. 4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 15, 2011. LMV