M.R.Shah, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.169 of 2013 by which Division Bench has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.27412 of 2012 by which the learned Single Judge solely relied upon the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 29.02.2012 in Writ petition No.2786 of 2012 and directed the appellant-corporation to extend the benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of his re-engagement except for the period during which he was absent, however, without any monetary benefit and shall be counted only for regularization, the original respondents-employer-corporation has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under : a. The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor and was working in Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad District of the appellant corporation. b. That a departmental enquiry was initiated against him by the appellant herein. c. Following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his service came to be terminated. d. That the respondent herein preferred a departmental appeal against the order of termination. e. That the Departmental appeal came to be dismissed. However, in the course of the departmental review the Regional Manager issued an order for the re-engagement of the respondent on contract on 21.02.2011. f. After his 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 with consequential service benefits. g. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the matter was not res integra and was covered by an earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012. Though on behalf of the Corporation an effort was made to distinguish the earlier decision on the ground that in the present case a fullfledged enquiry has been held, this distinction did not find acceptance by the learned Single Judge. On the contrary, it was held that in the previous case, the learned Judge had found that the enquiry was not in keeping with the principles of natural justice. Moreover, in the view of the Single Judge, once the Corporation had granted a largesse in the form of a fresh employment, the workman should not be deprived of the benefit of continuity of service for the limited purpose of regularisation. Hence, in terms of the direction in the earlier decision, the petition was disposed of by directing the Corporation to extend the benefit of continuity of service to the workman from the date of termination until the date of his reengagement except for the period when he was absent. This was, however, without any monetary benefit and was directed to count only for regularisation. h. The above order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in a Writ Appeal.;