HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9759 of 2010 Dated: 27-04-2010 Between: P. Jalandhar. … Petitioner And The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9759 of 2010 ORDER: As it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that similar matters were already disposed of by this Court, this writ petition is also disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the Proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing No.PA/19(Cond.)/2008- DVM/CR, dated 15.11.2008 in ordering fresh re-engagement of the petitioner as Conductor, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the termination of the petitioner is contrary to the circulars issued by the Corporation and also against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services by treating the re-engagement orders of the 1st respondent with continuity of service, with all consequential service benefits, in the interest of justice”. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis in the year 2006, in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), and is posted in the 2nd respondent Depot. Though appointments are made on contract basis, but such appointments are made after following the due procedure prescribed for selection of regular candidates, and as per the practice in vogue in the Corporation, the persons employed on contract basis will be absorbed into regular service, as and when the vacancies arise. When the petitioner was serving as such, on the ground that he unauthorisedly absented from his duties on 18.07.2008 without any intimation, his contract services were terminated by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager. As against the same, the petitioner preferred review/representation before the 1st respondent Divisional Manager. Mainly, it was the case of the petitioner before the Divisional Manager that due procedure was not followed by giving opportunity to him, before dispensing with his services. The Divisional Manager, by an order, dated 15.11.2008, issued in Proceedings No.PA/19(Cond.)/2008-DVM/CR, directed for reinstatement of petitioner, but however, ordered to execute a fresh agreement. It is submitted that pursuant to such directions, he is already reinstated into service. 4. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as the primary authority has not conducted any inquiry before passing the termination order, there is no reason for the appellate authority to direct the petitioner to enter into a fresh agreement. It is submitted that in view of such direction for entering into fresh agreement, his earlier service will not be counted for the purpose of absorption into regular service. It is to be noted that the order of termination is on the alleged mis- conduct of unauthorised absence. That being so, his services could not have been terminated unless a regular inquiry is conducted by issuing notice and giving opportunity to him. Though such a contention is raised and accepted by the Divisional Manager, but he has ordered to re-engage the petitioner, instead of setting aside the termination orders. By virtue of re-engagement, the petitioner is sought to be deprived of his seniority in the contract service. It is also submitted that similar such matter was disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 12th of April 2010, passed in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. 5. As much as the petitioner was not given an opportunity before passing the impugned order, and in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010, dated 12th of April 2010, I dispose of this writ petition, by setting aside the order of the appellate authority, dated 12.11.2008, to the extent of directing the petitioner to execute the fresh agreement and treating his appointment afresh, with a further direction to the respondents to take into consideration the contract service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, for the purpose of absorption into regular service. It is also made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract Conductors, appointed along with him. It is also made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th April 2010 ajr