THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 26037 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Welder in Manuguru Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1988. He was issued charge-sheet dated 11-12-1996, alleging that he has abused the Assistant Mechanical Foreman in filthy language; on 11-12-1996. Thereafter, the Depot Manager terminated the services of the petitioner, through order dated 05-07-1997. In a review petition filed by the petitioner, the Regional Manager, Khammam, the 3rd respondent, passed an order dated 25-05-1998, setting aside the order of termination, and directing reinstatement of the petitioner. Through the same order, the petitioner was posted to Sathupally Depot, and was required to report to duty, within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner contends that, at the relevant point of time, his mother was seriously ill, and he reported to duty, on 31-08-1998, to the Depot Manager, Sathupally, the 4th respondent. The latter issued letter dated 01-09-1998, to report to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner states that he reported to the 3rd respondent, but did not receive any directions or reply, from a long time, and on a fresh representation dated 08-12-2005, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 30-01-2006, stating that the order dated 25-05-1998, directing his reinstatement shall be deemed to have been cancelled. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Depot Manager, Manuguru, passed an order, terminating the services of the petitioner. That was set aside by the 3rd respondent in a review, filed by the petitioner. He was transferred to Sathupally Depot, and was required to report to duty within one week. There was some delay on the part of the petitioner in reporting to duty, stated to be on account of illness of his mother. Obviously because the petitioner reported to duty after seven days, the 4th respondent asked him to approach the 3rd respondent. After several years, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that the order dated 25-05-1998 shall be deemed to have been cancelled. No reasons, whatever, were mentioned in it. The 3rd respondent was convinced that the punishment of termination imposed against the petitioner was disproportionate, and cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, he directed reinstatement of the petitioner, by transferring him to a different Depot. Normally, whenever orders of termination are set aside, the matter is left at that, leaving it open to the concerned employee, to join duty, at his convenience. The reason is that in the period during which, he was out of service, he would be having an arrangement to eke out livelihood, and re-adjustment thereof will take some time. It is mostly in cases of dismissal from service, on account of unauthorized and prolonged absence, that conditions for reporting to duty within a stipulated time are incorporated, obviously to impart a semblance of discipline in the staff. Whatever be the justification in incorporating the condition, that the petitioner shall join duty within seven days, the mere delay in that regard ought not to have resulted in withdrawal of the relief granted by the 3rd respondent, after years together. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the 4th respondent is directed to take the petitioner to duty, by denying him any benefit, whatever, for the period, commencing with the date of termination of his services, to the date of reporting to duty. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, and directing the 4th respondent to take the petitioner into service; and that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit, whatever, for the period between the date of termination, and the date of joining to duty. However, the past service, rendered by him, shall be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits, and his pay scale shall be fixed by taking into account the last pay, drawn by him, before he was terminated. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-10-2010. KO