HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8090 of 2010 Dated: 12-04-2010 Between: Ch. Laxman. … Petitioner And The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8090 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on contract basis, has filed this writ petition with the following prayer : “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in ordering fresh re- engagement of the petitioner as contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent 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 No.ST/19(91)/2009- DVM:MD, dated 14.07.2009, as re- engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits”. 2. As per the practice in vogue in the respondent- Corporation, appointments are made during the year 2006 to the post of Conductor. Though regular procedure has been followed in the selections for appointment, but at first instance, orders were issued appointing the petitioner on contract basis. When he was in service on contract basis, his services were terminated by the Depot Manager by an order, dated 18th February 2009, issued in Proceedings No.P1/1(10)/2009-DSNR, alleging misconduct of unauthorised absence. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal. The appellate authority has disposed of the appeal by ordering reinstatement, but it was further observed that it shall be treated as a fresh engagement. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as the termination was without conducting any inquiry and without giving an opportunity to him, the same is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that though the appellate authority has ordered reinstatement, the said authority ought to have given the benefit of seniority etc., and ought not to have ordered for treating the petitioner’s reinstatement as a fresh engagement. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that if there are any allegations against the contract employees, instructions were issued by the Corporation in Circular No.PD-05/2009, dated 23rd February 2009, wherein, the procedure to be followed for taking disciplinary action in such cases, is indicated. It is further submitted that in similar cases, where contractual appointments are terminated without conducting any inquiry and without giving opportunity, this Court has allowed the matters. One such order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5429 of 2010, dated 10th of March 2010, is placed on record by the learned counsel for petitioner. Even the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent- Corporation, submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order of termination, as he was appointed on contract basis. 4. I have perused the copy of the termination order and also the order passed by the appellate authority. Though initial appointment given to the petitioner was on contract basis, but his services are terminated on the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence. In view of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have passed the termination order without giving any opportunity to him and without conducting any inquiry. Even if the services of a contract employee are to be terminated on any allegation, the same can be done only after giving notice to him and after following the procedure contemplated in the circular instructions issued by the Corporation. As much as the order of termination is not preceded by any opportunity or notice, passing of such an order is illegal, and further, there is no reason for the appellate authority to order that the reinstatement of petitioner shall be treated as a fresh engagement. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, by declaring that the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service and to all the benefits of contract employment, which are extended to the similarly placed contract employees. Accordingly, the order of the appellate authority to the extent of treating the petitioner’s reinstatement as a fresh engagement, stands quashed. 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. 6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th April 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. by 15.04.2010. (b/o) ajr