thiTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :13022 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswary, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. The petitioner, who is working as conductor on contract basis in the respondent-corporation, filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract conductor as illegal and arbitrary. In this writ petition the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on contract basis in the respondent-Corporation in the year 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that though she was given appointment on contract basis, the respondents have followed the regular selection process while making selections. In the corporation as per the practice in vogue, as and when vacancies arise, such candidates are being absorbed into regular service. The petitioner was appointed as a contract conductor. Her services were terminated by the Depot Manager, Kalwakurthy, the second respondent herein, vide order dated 18.07.2007 on the ground that she was unauthorisedly absent from 12.07.2007 to 18.07.2007. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar, the first respondent herein, who in turn, passed orders on 24.04.2008 directing to re-engage the petitioner as fresh conductor on contract basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was absent from duties due to ill-health. The second respondent passed the order of termination without issuing any notice and without conducting any regular enquiry. It is also submitted that even the first respondent, who is the appellate authority, instead of allowing the appeal as prayed for, ordered fresh appointment. In view of the same, the petitioner deprived of the seniority in the category of contract conductors, which is being taken into consideration for the absorption into regular service. The learned counsel placed reliance on the order, dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that identical matters were disposed of by this Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner, keeping it open to the respondents to conduct regular enquiry as per law, and requests to dispose of the writ petition on the same lines. I have perused the copy of termination order dated 18.07.2007 passed by the second respondent and also the order of the appellate authority dated 24.04.2008. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the second respondent, it is evident that though the order of termination was passed on the allegation of unauthorized absence for duty from 12.07.2007 to 18.07.2007, the petitioner was not issued any notice or conducted any enquiry before passing the order. Even the appellate authority, though accepted the plea of the petitioner that she was absent due to her ill-health, instead of allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of termination, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner afresh. As such the order of termination is illegal and the same was not preceded by any notice or enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seniority in the category of contract conductors from the date of his initial appointment. The judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner also supports the case of the petitioner. For the afore said reasons and following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5998 of 2009 dated 23.03.2009 and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner was already reinstated into service, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to extend the benefit of seniority to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as contract conductor. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is not entitled to any monitory benefits. It is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 10th June, 2010 Js.