HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1040 OF 2011 ORDER:- (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23484 of 2000 instituted by the respondent herein challenging the validity of the order dated 24.08.2000, removing him from service of the appellant. 2. The writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as a Unit Worker on 27.07.1986 on NMR basis. Four persons including the writ petitioner/respondent were found indulging in a malpractice of preparing Laddu Prasadam of inferior size and selling the same clandestinely to the visiting pilgrims of the shrine. Hence, disciplinary proceedings ensued after they were placed under suspension initially on 07.01.1997. During the course of enquiry, the writ petitioner/respondent was reinducted into service of the appellant. It now transpired that the other three individuals who are regular employees of the appellant have been reinstated duly imposing minor punishments while the respondent/writ petitioner was removed from service. Further, when appealed against, those minor punishments were also set-aside in the case of those employees. In those set of circumstances, the learned single Judge considered it as not proper for the appellant to adopt different yardsticks while imposing punishment against various employees facing the same charges. Therefore, the learned single Judge felt it appropriate to take a lenient view even in the case of the respondent/writ petitioner. However, the learned single Judge while directing the respondent/writ petitioner to be taken back into duty, as a fresher on NMR basis, proceeded to order the period in between 24.08.2000, the date of removal up to the date of reinstatement to be counted for purposes of seniority and retirement benefits. 3. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondent/employee. 4. Learned standing counsel for the appellant could not tender any valid reasons as to why the appellant has taken an extremely compassionate view in favouring three of its regular employees and as to why the said compassion was found missing in the case of the respondent/writ petitioner. While, there can be a distinction that can be borne in mind between a regular employee and a NMR based employee, but an extremely harsh punishment should not have been chosen in the case of NMR employee. In our opinion, the ends of Justice would be met if no benefits are accorded for the period between 24.08.2000, the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, but, at the same time the service rendered by the respondent/writ petitioner between 27.07.1986, the date of his initial engagement up to 24.08.2000 shall be taken into account and consideration for purpose of regularization and terminal benefits only, in conjunction with the service which he would be rendering upon reinstatement. The respondent/writ petitioner shall be reinstated within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, if not already reinstated. With this modification of the order passed by the learned single Judge, this writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 25th November, 2011 Rrb/sp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1040 OF 2011 25th November, 2011 sp