HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30369 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011 Between: P.Srinivasu. …Petitioner. And: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Regional Manager, Guntur Region, Guntur and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30369 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not ordering reengagement of the petitioner with continuity of service as Contract Driver is unjust and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the order of the 2nd respondent dated 1-4-2010 as reengagement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including regularization on par with his juniors. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as Contract Driver in the year 2005, through due process of Selection by the Selection Committee constituted as per the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, in Guntur Region and posted to Guntur-1 Depot. He has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. Subsequently, since his mother was sick, he was attending to her treatment and hence, he could not attend his duties from 7-5-2008 to 12-5-2008. Though he informed the Depot authorities that he was unable to attend duties, the authorities have not sanctioned any leave on the ground that the Contract Drivers were not eligible. Subsequently, he was terminated by an order of the 3rd respondent-Depot Manager, dated 12-5- 2008 on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from his duties for the period mentioned above. No charge sheet was issued and no enquiry was conducted. In this connection, he preferred an appeal on 22-5-2008 to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Chief Traffic Manager and the same was received by the 2nd respondent on 13.7.2009. The 2nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 1-4-2010 has considered his appeal and directed to reengage him as fresh Contract Driver and posted him to Guntur-2 Depot. Recently, 1st respondent issued regularization orders in Guntur Region. The petitioner also made a representation to the authorities, but his case was not considered on the ground that the petitioner was reengaged as fresh Contract Driver. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been reinstated into service, his case has not been considered by giving the continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of reengagement. Apart from that, since his case has not been considered in respect of continuity of service, his name was not considered for regularization of his services. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is squarely covered by an unreported order of this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.26193 of 2010. The said writ petition in W.P.No.26193 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner therein for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent therein in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner therein is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent proceedings dated 30-4-2008 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. By order dated 25-10-2010, this Court allowed the said writ petition observing as under: “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 is no dispute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the above order of this Court. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and consequently, 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. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of this relief. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 16-11-2011. Note: Issue C.C. today. BO Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30369 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011