THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 13769 of 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract conductor as arbitrary and illegal; consequently to direct the respondents to treat 1st respondent’s proceedings dated 28.7.2008 as re-engagement with continuity of service, with all consequential service benefits including regularization. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a contract Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in the year 2006, subsequent to notification and through a regular selection process in Karimnagar Region and he was working in APSRTC, Huzurabad Bus Depot. While so, he was terminated from service by Office Order No.P1/1(57)/08-HZBD dated 17.7.2008 on the allegation of unauthorized absenteeism from 13.7.2008 to 17.7.2008. Against the said proceedings, he filed an appeal before 1st respondent and the appellate authority passed proceedings No.PA/19(42)/2007- RM:KRNR dated 28.7.2008 ordering his re-engagement as contract Conductor and accordingly he was reinstated into service. However, recently the respondents prepared list for regularization of services of contract conductors in which the juniors to the petitioner were considered, but he was not considered on the ground that while ordering re-engagement by the appellate authority, no direction was given as to continuity of service. The grievance of the petitioner is that the termination order dated 17.7.2008 itself is illegal and void ab initio, since no show-cause notice or charge sheet was issued and no enquiry was conducted before passing such termination order. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court a copy of the order dated 12.4.2010 passed in W.P. No. 8090 of 2010 and submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is similar to that of the issue involved in W.P.No. 8090 of 2010. Perused the material made available on record and the order passed in W.P. No. 8090 of 2010 dated 12.4.2010. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is akin to the issue that arose for consideration in W.P. No. 8090 of 2010, which was disposed of on 12.4.2010, this writ petition, too, is disposed of following the said order, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service and 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 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. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 18-6-2010. MVB.