WP/34222/2011 of V.R. Chandra Vs Andhra PRadesh Road Transport Corporation, on 30 December 2011

Arguments

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ ofissuance of mandamus, declaring the order passed by the2[nd] respondent in proceedings No.St/660(39)/2007-RM(NLR) dated 10.03.2008, in so far as denyingcontinuity of service having set aside the order oftermination passed by the 3[rd] respondent in ProceedingsNo.M1/1(20)/07-NLR-2, dated 12.12.2007, as illegal,unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Articles14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, andconsequently direct the respondents to regularizeservices of petitioner with effect from 01.01.2010, insteadof 01.01.2011, with all attendant benefits.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

The facts of the case, in brief, are:-

The petitioner was appointed as Driver on contractbasis on 05.05.2005 and his services were terminated bythe 3[rd] respondent vide Proceedings dated 12.12.2007 forunauthorized absence. On appeal before the 2[nd]respondent, the 2[nd] respondent by Proceeedings dated10.03.2008 re-engaged the petitioner in service afresh, without any continuity of service. It is stated that similarlyplaced employees who joined service along with thepetitioner were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010and, but the services of the petitioner were regularized byorder dated 01.01.2011. Further, it is stated that noenquiry was conducted while terminating his services andlater on, he was re-engaged and regularized in servicesetting aside termination proceedings and therefore, he isentitled for continuity of service on par with hiscolleagues. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents innot giving the benefit of continuity of service, this writpetition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contendthat the 2[nd] respondent, while setting aside thetermination proceedings issued by the 3[rd] respondents,ordered re-engagement of the petitioner, but not grantedcontinuity of service from the date of termination to thedate of re-engagement. He further submits that similarlysituated persons who have been appointed in 2005 andworking in the respondent-Corporation on contract basiswere regularized with effect from 01.01.2010, and that thecase of petitioner falls in the same category of thoseemployees. Placing reliance on the order dated08.11.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27536 of2010, the counsel submits that in the said W.P., thecontract drivers whose were initially terminated and lateron re-engaged were given the benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of re-engagement.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner is already re-engaged and his services are regularized with effect from01.01.2011, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled forany relief sought for in this writ petition.

The point that arises for consideration is whether thepetitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writpetition.

Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as driver oncontract basis on 05.05.2005. On 12.12.2007, hisservices were terminated and, on 10.03.2008, thepetitioner was re-engaged afresh without continuity ofservice. This Court, by order dated 08.11.2010 in theW.P.No.27536 of 2010, observed that:- “Identical issue was dealt with by this Court inW.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through order, dated 12.04.2010,this Court held that the contractual employees, who arere-engaged on the orders of removal being set aside, areentitled for the benefit of past service.

Following the same, the writ petition is allowedand it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to thebenefit of the service between the date of termination andthe date of re-engagement. There shall be no order as tocosts.”

Conclusion

In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.27536 of2010, this writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner shallbe entitled to the benefit of continuity of service betweenthe date of termination and the date of re-engagement, but without any monetary benefits for the said interregnumperiod. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________

JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

30[th] December, 2011

KSM