THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.32528 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in paying the starting basic pay of driver on reinstating the petitioner into service after allowing the petitioner to withdraw the resignation letter by respondent No.2 through his proceedings, dated 08.12.2006, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the basic pay which the petitioner was drawing as on 15.07.2006 from the date of his reinstatement duly fixing it in corresponding basic pay of R.P.S. 2009 along with its consequential arrears. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as Driver on 16.04.1991 in the respondent Corporation. His services were regularized on 01.08.1992. While so, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 13.07.2006 and the same was accepted by the Depot Manager, Guntur-I Depot on 15.07.2006 and he was relieved from duties. Thereafter, the petitioner made an appeal, dated 08.08.2006, to respondent No.2 seeking for withdrawal of the resignation. On 08.12.2006, respondent No.2 passed an order accepting the withdrawal of the resignation and requested the Depot Manager to take further action in the matter. Consequently, the petitioner reported to duty on 18.12.2006 and as on today, working in the depot of respondent No.3, but respondent No.3 started paying the starting basic pay of a Driver. He made a representation, dated 01.02.2007, to respondent No.1 but of no use. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on the date of resignation of the petitioner, his payment of salary was in the scale attached to the post of Driver; that consequent to the reporting for duty on 18.12.2006, the petitioner has been paid only the minimum basic salary attached to the post of Driver; and hence, the petitioner is entitled to payment of salary that he was drawing as on 15.07.2006 but not the minimum basic pay attached to the post of Driver. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment, dated 26.08.2008, in W.P.No.24286 of 1999 rendered by this Court and contends that the petitioner is entitled to the pay that he was drawing prior to 15.07.2006 and all the revised pay scales of 2009. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that Regulation 7(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short, ‘the Regulations’), the appointment of a person re-appointed after acceptance of the resignation will be treated as a first appointment to such service and on such appointment, he will be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order. Placing reliance on the same rule, learned Standing Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the petitioner had submitted his resignation in order to participate in the Panchayat Elections, 2006 and the same was accepted. Since the petitioner lost in the election, he made a representation to respondent No.2 for withdrawing the resignation and the same has been accepted. In view of the acceptance of the said resignation, the petitioner is deemed to be re-appointed in terms of regulation 7(b) of the Regulations. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is untenable in law. He further submit that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24286 of 1999 is not applicable for the reason that in that case, the petitioner therein had submitted his representation before the acceptance of the resignation. In those circumstances, this Court had granted the relief sought for in the writ petition and further, he submit that the petitioner had enjoyed all the service benefits consequent to his re-appointment for a period of four years. Then, he woke up and filed the present writ petition taking advantage of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24286 of 1999. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The point that arise for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled to the scale attached to the post being drawn by him on 15.07.2006 (prior to his resignation was accepted)”? 6. There is no dispute with regard to the factual position that the petitioner submitted his resignation on 13.07.2006 and the same was accepted on 15.07.2006 and he was relieved from duty. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 08.12.2006 withdrawing his resignation whereunder respondent No.2 issued the order accepting his representation, which reads as under: “The Depot Manager, Guntur-1 has accepted the Resignation submitted by Sri M.Nagaiah, E:384287 Ex-driver of Guntur-I depot on the plea that the party desires to contest in Panchayat Elections held during the year 2006 vide reference 1st cited. Sri M.Nagaiah, E:384287, Ex-Driver of Guntur-1 Depot has submitted a representation to the Regional Manager, Guntur vide reference 2nd cited to permit him for withdrawal of his resignation. Since he has lost in the elections and at present there is no livelihood for him. The Regional Manager, Guntur has perused the representation of the Ex-driver in terms of item No.39-Section 9 of Service Matters of Delegation of Powers 2005 read with item No.7 of Service Regulations 1964, and accepted for withdrawal of resignation and ordered to retain him at Guntur-I depot. The Depot Manager, Guntur-1 is therefore requested to take further action in the matter since the withdrawal of Resignation submitted by Sri M.Nagaiah, E:384287, Ex-Driver of Guntur-1 Depot, is accepted by the Regional Manager, Guntur.” and consequently, the petitioner reported for duty on 18.12.2006 in the depot of respondent No.3 and accordingly, he was working there. For the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner, what is important is Clause 2 of the order, dated 08.12.2006, which reads as under: “The Regional Manager, Guntur has perused the representation of the Ex-driver in terms of item No.39-Section 9 of Service Matters of Delegation of Powers 2005 read with item No.7 of Service Regulations 1964, and accepted for withdrawal of resignation and ordered to retain him at Guntur-I depot.” In that view of the matter, whether the appointment of the petitioner can be termed as re-appointment pursuant to the order, dated 08.12.2006, or not has to be considered now. Regulation 7 of the Regulations reads as under: Regulation No.7:- Provisions relating to resignation, re-employment and transfer: a) A member of a service shall if he resigns his appointment forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation but also all his previous service under the Corporation. b) The re-appointment of such persons to any service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply; and on such re-appointment he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order c) When an employee is proposed to be transferred from one category or post to another category or post, the duties of which are different in character, he may be required to undergo a medical examination to determine his fitness or otherwise to discharge the duties of the new post. d) No person invalidated from service shall be re-employed if he is a Class I or Class II Officer without the specific sanction of the Corporation and in other cases without the sanction of the Managing Director.” A careful reading of sub clauses (a) & (b) would apply to the persons, whose resignation has been accepted and again considered for re-appointment afresh. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted resignation and the same was accepted and he was relieved from duty. Thereafter, he filed representation withdrawing the resignation. The said representation has been accepted and he was ordered for retention in the service by order, dated 08.12.2006. In my view, the word ‘retention’ used in the order, dated 08.12.2006, cannot be read into the words mentioned in clause (b) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations wherein it is used as ‘re-employment’ The word ‘re- employment’ is different from that of ‘retention’. Retention contain the meaning as to retain a person as it is as he was on the date of resignation. Admittedly, in the instant case, petitioner submitted resignation, which was withdrawn and later accepted by respondent No.2 and ordered him to retain. That means the position he had before resignation will be retained to him without changing any status. 7. The Court observed the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.24286 of 1999 as under: “It is his grievance that since the resignation tendered by him was allowed to be withdrawn, there is no reason in imposing the condition of treating him as a junior most, although he was appointed on 06.05.1981.” Answering that issue, the Court held at Para No.9, which reads as under: “Having regard to the above said provisions, the only question which is required to be considered is by virtue of the orders of the respondents permitting the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation, can it be treated as a re-appointment within the meaning of regulation 7(a) and (b). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed at first instance on 06.05.1981, and having served for about 17 years, indicating some domestic problems, he has tendered resignation on 06.01.1999. While it is open for the respondents to refuse for withdrawal of resignation on the ground that the resignation was already accepted prior to filing of representations for its withdrawal, but once orders are passed permitting the petitioner to withdraw his resignation, it is not open for the respondents to impose any condition, depriving him of the past service of about 17 years. By virtue of withdrawal of resignation, he has to be put in the same position as if he has not resigned. As much as the petitioner was restored into service by virtue of accepting his request for withdrawal of resignation, it cannot be treated as re-appointment within the meaning of Clause 7(b) of service regulations.” Having held so, the Court granted relief at Para No.11, which reads as follows: “For the aforesaid reasons, the office order under challenge, dated 24th March, 1999, issued in proceedings No.P1/692(1)/99- RM:MR, to the extent of imposing the condition that the petitioner would become junior-most in the category of Conductors in Medak Region, is set aside, and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to his past service from 06.05.1981. His pay has to be re-fixed accordingly, and he is entitled for all consequential benefits.” 8. In the instant case also, the withdrawal of the petitioner’s resignation was accepted and by proceedings, dated 08.12.2006, issued by respondent No.2, he was directed to retain into service. No word of ‘re-appointment’ has been used in that order. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submit that the Depot Manager has been directed to take into consideration to retain the petitioner. The Depot Manager has not issued any consequential order, but he has allowed the petitioner to go and report for duty on 18.12.2006 and accordingly, the petitioner started performing his duties. Therefore, in my view, clause (b) of Regulation (7) of the Regulations has no application to the instant case, as held by this Court in its judgment supra. 9. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting all the reliefs that he is entitled to by treating him as an employee before 15.07.2006 and also to pay all the consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 07th December, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.32528 OF 2010 Date:07.12.2011 AMD