M.R.Shah, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.864 of 2013 by which the Division Bench dismissed the same appeal and confirmed judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2012 in Writ Petition No.17541 of 2012 directing the appellants herein original respondents to extend the benefit of continuity of service to the workman from the date of termination till the date of reengagement except for the period when he was absent and that would be without monetary benefit and that it would be granted only for the purpose of regularization at a later date, the original respondents- Corporation-employer have preferred the present appeal.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeal are as under : a. That the respondent herein-original writ petitioner was appointed as a contract driver and working with the appellant corporation. b. That a departmental enquiry was initiated against him for remaining on unauthorized absence. c. Following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his services came to be terminated. d. After the dismissal of the departmental appeal, and in the course of the departmental review, the Divisional Manager issued an order for the re-engagement of the respondent on contract on 06.07.2012. e. After the re-engagement, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for continuity of service together consequential service benefit.;