IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 9383 of 2011 Between: K.Srinivas Reddy …PETITIONER AND The Divisional Manager, APSRTC and others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 9383 of 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed to issue a writ or Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as Contract Driver, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and the termination of the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and against the Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat respondent No.1, proceedings dated 11.12.2009, as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequently service benefits including regularization. 2. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a driver. After some time, by an order, dated 05.06.2008, passed by the Depot Manager, Barkatpura Depot, Hyderabad, he was terminated from service on the ground of absenteeism. No enquiry was conducted before the order of termination was passed. Subsequently, against the order of termination, he preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Charminar Division. The Divisional Manager ordered his reengagement by his proceedings, dated 11.12.2009 as a contract driver afresh. The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that while issuing orders of re-engagement by appellate authority, the respondents did not extent the benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of reengagement. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through an order, dated 12.04.2010, this Court had taken a view that the contractual employees, who are re-engaged on the orders of removal are entitled to the benefit of past service. There is no other reason to deviate from the finding given by this Court with regard to extending the benefit of continuity of service as sought for. Even otherwise, the termination on the ground of absence for duties for a period of about 15 days in not shown to be willful or wanton. The reason for absence to the duties is beyond the control of writ petitioner as his body was burnt. That is the reason why the appellate authority accepted the explanation of writ petitioner. 5. Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement, only for the purpose of regularization. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary or any other benefits on account of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 11, 2011 YVL