HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No.1054 of 2005 Date: 24-1-2008 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Huzurabad Deport, Karimnagar District. … Appellant. and M. Lakshmana Rao and another. … Respondents. :JUDGMENT: Per Anil R. Dave, CJ The 1st respondent-original petitioner, a conductor working in the appellant-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, did not issue tickets and misbehaved with the checking officials of the Corporation when there was a surprise check conducted on 27.11.1995. As a result thereof, an enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service. In the proceedings initiated before the Labour Court, the order of removal was confirmed. In Writ Petition No.1397 of 2002 filed by the original petitioner, this Court, by the order under appeal, directed the present appellant to consider the case of the original petitioner for fresh appointment and to treat the entire period of his service on a notional basis for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has preferred this appeal. We have heard Smt. P. Rajani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent-original petitioner. Looking to the fact that the original petitioner-conductor had not collected fare from the passengers, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge is absolutely right when he came to the conclusion that there was no misappropriation. However, it appears that because of the misbehaviour on the part of the conductor, the order of removal has been confirmed and the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-Corporation to consider the case of the original petitioner for fresh appointment. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, subject to final outcome of this appeal, the petitioner- conductor has also been given fresh appointment. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-Corporation that in view of the direction given by the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the original petitioner for fresh appointment, the learned Single Judge is not justified in issuing a direction to consider the entire period of service rendered by the original petitioner on notional basis for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits. Needless to say that if upon reconsideration, a decision is taken by the Corporation not to give fresh appointment to the original petitioner, then the question of treating the entire period of service rendered by the original petitioner for the purpose of calculating pensioanry benefits would not arise at all. Therefore, we hereby clarify that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to treating the entire period of service for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits would not apply if upon reconsideration a decision is taken by the Corporation not to give fresh appointment to the original petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 24th January, 2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J vtv