Writ Petition No. 7503 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K C BHANU
Outcome
Allowed
4 Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1 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 arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 1st respondent’s proceedings, dated
21.01.2010, 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 22.05.2005 as a contract Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in West Godavari region. While he was performing as such in the Corporation, his services were terminated by the 2nd respondent on the allegation of unauthorised absenteeism
07.07.2009 to 03.08.2009. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the first respondent explaining that because of his father’s ill-health, he could not attend the duties. The said appeal was considered and the 1st respondent ordered for his re-engagement by proceedings, dated
21.01.2010, as contract Driver. Subsequent to that, he was reinstated 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 list of candidates regularisation. Hence, the writ petition. 3 In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by order, dated
Operative part
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 purpose of regularisation in 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.
19.07.2011 Kvsn ___________ K.C. BHANU, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 4 Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.