THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.32285 of 2011 ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11-11-2011 passed by the 2nd respondent denying continuity of his service with all attendant benefits as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to re-engage the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including regularization. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Conductor on 26-03-1980 on regular basis in the respondent-Corporation. On 21-07-2010 while he was conducting the bus service from Nizamabad to Warangal, a check was exercised by the checking officials at Perkit and a memo was issued alleging that he had issued used ticket to a passenger, for which he submitted his explanation. Without considering the same, the Depot Manager, NZB-I Depot, had suspended him from service on 28-07-2010 and issued charge sheet on the same day and ordered for enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report. Basing on the said findings, a show cause notice was issued to him, for which he submitted his explanation. But, without considering the same, the Depot Manager, NZB-I had removed him from service vide order dated 7-3-2011 and the same was upheld by the appellate authority-Deputy Chief Traffic Manager vide order dated 12-07-2011. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent, who, in turn, passed the impugned order reinstating him into service as regular Conductor afresh. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while ordering reinstatement into service, the 2nd respondent has not extended the benefit of continuity of service. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12857 of 2011, dated 28.4.2011, wherein it is held as under: “It is not in dispute before this Court that the rules and regulations of the Corporation do not provide for reinstating him into service as fresh conductor. This is not even disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation considering the unblemished past service of 20 years of petitioner, the reviewing authority has taken a lenient view. Therefore, the impugned punishment is modified and the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal to reinstatement. It is made clear that by virtue of this order, the petitioner shall not be entitled for monetary or any other benefits treating duly the removal period as not spent on duty.” Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation does not dispute the same. In the case on hand, the petitioner has put in 30 years of service and the revisional authority having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered for reinstatement afresh. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: “However, keeping in view of his lengthy service of more than 30 years and since so far no appeal was considered by review/appellate authority, I am inclined to take a lenient view on humanitarian grounds. Accordingly, he shall be reinstated into service as a regular Conductor afresh, duly collecting fresh security deposit. He shall be posted to Banswada Depot for reinstatement.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and following the judgment of this Court referred to supra, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order as follows: “The petitioner is entitled to continuity of service from the date of dismissal to reinstatement. It is made clear that by virtue of this order, the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary or any other benefits treating duly the removal period as not spent on duty. No costs.” _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J rkk Dated: 9-12-2011