Petitioner, a contract driver terminated for absenteeism and later re-engaged, sought continuity of service benefits. Court allowed writ, holding petitioner entitled to service continuity but denying monetary benefits.
Petitioner entitled to benefit of service rendered between date of termination and reengagement; no monetary benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.29892 of 2011
Between:
D.Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And The APSRTC., Represented by its VC & MD Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another.
… Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.29892 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a Driver. After some time, he was terminated from service on the ground of absenteeism. Thereafter, he filed and appeal that was rejected and therefore, filed a revision, wherein he was re-engaged as fresh contract Driver. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing orders of re-engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Now the respondents have prepared a list for regularization of services of contract drivers wherein, the juniors to him were placed and the name of the petitioner was not shown. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing a copy of the order dated 27.04.2011 passed in W.P. No.12264 of 2011, submitted that this Court had dealt with identical issue and directed that the petitioner therein was entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation does not dispute the same.
In that view of the matter, following the order dated 27.04.2011
passed in W.P. No.12264 of 2011, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service rendered between the date of termination and the date of reengagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits in pursuance of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Date: 10.11.2011 LSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between termination and reengagement as a driver.
Whether monetary benefits should be granted in pursuance of the order directing continuity of service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No.12264 of 2011Followed¶14
D.Srinivasa Rao
The APSRTC.
G.CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
