IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18068 of 2011 Date:29.06.2011 Between: A. Sanjeev Kumar .....Petitioner AND The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and another. ....Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18068 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and against the circulars issued by the Corporation and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent proceedings dated 15.6.2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. The writ petitioner has been appointed as Conductor in the respondents corporation on 6.7.2006 through a regular selection process in Hyderabad City Region. While he was performing as such in the Corporation, his services were terminated by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that he failed to issue tickets. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, Hyderabad but the same was rejected on 21.01.2010. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a review petition before the 1st respondent herein by explaining that he has issued tickets to all the passengers and the bus was running over crowded on the said day. The said review was considered and the 1st respondent ordered for his re-engagement by proceedings dated 15.06.2010 as contract conductor. Subsequent to that, he was re- instated into service and he was performing his duties as usual. But, unfortunately, while issuing orders of re-engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service and hence, the petitioner’s name was not shown in the list of candidates for regularisation. Hence, the writ petition. 3. In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by order dated 04.03.2011, in W.P.No.5365 of 2011 allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement only for the purposes of regularization; that, however, the petitioner therein shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. 4. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed observing that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement for the purpose of regularization of his services. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment as Conductor on regular basis in the existing or in future vacancies subject to eligibility. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J. June, 29, 2010 Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18068 of 2011 29th June, 2011 Gk.