THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23783 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Conductor, on contract basis, in the APSRTC. On the allegation that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duties, from 14.12.2005 to 30.12.2005, the Depot Manager, Miyapur, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order, dated 21.01.2006, directing his removal. 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/revisional authority. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing orders of re-engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 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 past service rendered by him, except the period during which he was absent and out of service till the date of reinstatement. It is also directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit on account of this. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:24.08.2011 GJ