THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :30198 of 2011 Dated: 15.11.2011 Between: Sk. John Saida ..Petitioner And 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep., by its Regional Manager, Guntur Region, Guntur and others. ..Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :30198 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent to the extent of not ordering re-engagement of the petitioner with continuity of service as contract driver, as unjust and consequently, to direct the respondents to treat the order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.1.2010 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed by the respondent-Corporation as a contract driver on 8.7.2008 and his appointment was through the process of selection by the selection committee constituted as per the APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 and posted to Guntur-1 depot. While so, he suffered with jaundice during the period from 22.9.2009 to 3.12.2009, due to which he could not attend to his duties. Therefore, by proceedings dated 3.12.2009, the 3rd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was found unauthorizedly absent during the above period. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent on 5.1.2010. The 2nd respondent on 29.1.2010 set aside the order of termination dated 3.12.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent and posted the petitioner at Baptla depot, where he reported on 8.3.2010, and thereafter he was transferred to Guntur-2 depot. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as contract driver and he was terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence and the reason for his absence that he was suffering from jaundice, was not considered by the original authority, and the 2nd respondent-appellate authority considered the same and set aside the termination order and ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner but without continuity of service. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the relief sought for in this writ petition is squarely covered by order 12.9.2011 in W.P.No.25484 of 2011. The learned Standing Counsel also states that the relief in this writ petition is covered by the order referred to above. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to count the past service for the limited purpose of regularization of his services, as and when occasion arises, and that he shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit on account of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ Justice G. Chandraiah DATE: 15.11.2011 nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.30198 of 2011 15.11.2011 Nn