M.R.Shah, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed in Review Petition in W.A.M.P. No.1858 of 2013 in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013 by which the Division Bench has dismissed the said application and has refused to review and recall its judgment and order passed in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013, original applicant in review application has preferred the present appeals, challenging the main order as well as the order passed in the review application.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under : a. That the respondent herein was appointed as a contract conductor and was working in Cantonment Depot, Hyderabad. b. That a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. c. That in the departmental enquiry the respondent was found guilty. Based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the respondent was dismissed from service. d. That the appeal preferred by the respondent before the First Appellate Authority came to be rejected on merits. e. That thereafter the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference and confirmed the order of termination. f. That thereafter the original writ petitioner preferred the Writ Petition No.4317 of 2012 before the learned Single Judge invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. g. By judgment and order dated 30.10.2012 the learned Single judge allowed the Writ Petition No.4317 of 2012 solely relying upon the earlier judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 directing the petitioner corporation to re-engage the respondent herein in service and extend the benefits of continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of his re-engagement, excepting during the period when he was absent and it would be without any monetary benefit and that it would be counted only for the purpose of regularization at a later date. h. Aggrieved by judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein preferred Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013. The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal without considering the distinguishing facts pointed out on behalf of the appellant. i. That thereafter the appellant herein filed the Review Petition before the Division Bench and requested to review and recall the order passed in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013 submitting that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 upon which the reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the main petition and which was affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.04.2013 in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013, was not applicable on facts.;