THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.11586 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). 2. This writ petition is ﬁled to declare the proceeding No.D1/255(24)/200-HCR dated 10.10.2000 issued by the 3rd respondent - Deputy Chief Personnel Manager(HCR) and also the subsequent proceeding No.D1/255(24)/2000(HCR) dated 28.11.2000 issued by the 3rd respondent in reinstating the petitioner, who is the Conductor, from 27.8.1997 and ignoring his past service of 24 years, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents – Corporation to promote him on par with his juniors i.e., S.N.Singh E.No.37355 and others. 3. From the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition it could be seen that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor on 1.12.1968 and he was removed from service on 13.3.1992 on the allegations of misappropriate of the Corporation revenue. Challenging the order of removal, the petitioner ﬁled I.D.No.10/1994 on the file of Labour Court, Hyderabad and by Award dated 15.5.1995 the punishment of removal was conﬁrmed. Challenging the same, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.28280/1995 and this court by order dated 1.5.1997 disposed of the writ petition and directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service afresh without continuity of service and without back wages. The petitioner ﬁled a review petition before this court in Rew.W.P.M.P.No.20361/1999 in W.P.No.28280/1995 and by order dated 9.8.1999 the word ‘afresh’ was directed to be deleted. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that as he was reinstated into service, his past service of 24 years shall be considered for promoting to the post of Controller/ADC along with his juniors. Accordingly he ﬁled representation, but the respondent – Corporation is reckoning his seniority with eﬀect from 27.8.1997 and further intimated that the conductors appointed up to 1.5.1977 only have got promoted and that his case will be considered as and when his turn comes. Hence, Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The Law Oﬃcer of the Corporation ﬁled counter aﬃdavit and the tenor of the aﬃdavit is to the eﬀect that as this court in W.P.No.28280/1995 dated 1.5.1997 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner afresh without continuity of service and without back wages and further the order passed in the review petition ﬁled by the petitioner in REW.WPMP.No.20361/1999 in W.P.No.28280/1995 dated 9.8.1999 only deleted the word ‘afresh’ and the remaining order with regard to reinstatement without continuity of service and without back wages remained unaltered and hence as per the orders of this court, the service of the petitioner was reckoned only from 27.8.1987 and accordingly his case will be considered as per his seniority. Accordingly the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. From the above material on record, it could be seen that the petitioner was removed from service on 13.3.1992 and as per the counter aﬃdavit, the said removal was on the third occasion. Challenging the same, the petitioner ﬁled I.D.No.10/1994 and by order dated 15.5.1995 the order of removal imposed by the Corporation was conﬁrmed and in the writ petition ﬁled by the petition in W.P.No.28280/1995 this court by order dated 1.5.1997 ordered reinstatement afresh, without continuity of service and without back wages within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the order dated 1.5.1997 is extracted as under: “In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent – Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service afresh without continuity of service and without back wages within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner ﬁled a review petition in Rew.WPMP.No.20361/1999 and this court by order dated 9.8.1999 passed the order as under: “The word ‘afresh’ that appears at line no.2 of the operative portion of the order dt.1-5-1997 passed in WP.No.28280/95 is a typographical mistake that deserved to be deleted. Accordingly after hearing both the sides, the word “afresh” which appears in the third line of the operative portion of the order is deleted.” 7. From a combined reading of the order in the writ petition and in the review petition, it could be seen that this court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service and without back wages. Accordingly after receiving the order, the petitioner was reinstated on 27.8.1997 and his service was being reckoned from that date of his reinstatement. Further it is to be noticed that as he was reinstated into service with eﬀect from 27.8.1997 without continuity of service and without back wages, he cannot compare with persons who were appointed and working prior to his reinstatement and hence the same cannot be appreciated. Hence, the petitioner has to wait for his turn for consideration of his case for promotion. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------------- 02--09--2008