THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 31142 OF 2010 ORDER: Learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation state that in somewhat similar circumstances, my learned Brother Justice R.Subhash Reddy disposed of good number of cases with the following directions: “…. There shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which are extended to the similarly placed employees. It is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry against him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. …..” Subsequently, it was clarified that such casual drivers are not entitled for monetary benefits for the interregnum period. Since the facts and circumstances in the instant case are identical, its only appropriate that this writ petitioner should also be disposed of in the aforesaid manner making it clear that the writ petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits for the interregnum period. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions as above. No order as to costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 20th December 2010