IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18832 OF 2011 Between: Y.K. Babu ..... Petitioner AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Region, Guntur District & another ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18832 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and against to the corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings, dated 24.11.2009, as re-instatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation. 2. The writ petitioner has been appointed on in the month of April, 2005, as a contract Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in Guntur City Region. While he was performing as such in the Corporation, his services were terminated by the 2nd respondent on the allegation of unauthorised absenteeism from 07.04.2009 to 22.04.2009 after conducting departmental enquiry. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Deputy Traffic Manager, Guntur on 20.08.2009 but the same was rejected on 09.10.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition to the 1st respondent explaining that he suffered with neurology problem and took treatment in GGH, Mangalagiri, and produced the sick certificate for the alleged period, but it was not considered by the depot authorities. The 1st respondent ordered for his re-engagement by proceedings, dated 24.11.2009, as contract Driver. Subsequent to that, he was reinstated into service and he was performing his duties as usual. But, while issuing orders of re-engagement, the 1st respondent 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 therein 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 regularisation in the existing or future vacancies; that, however, the petitioner therein shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. 4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 6th July, 2011. KL/GK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18832 OF 2011 6th July, 2011 KL