order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 30-09-2011 passed in WP.No.27593 of 2011. The petitioner in the said case sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in ordering fresh re-engagement of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, as the termination of the petitioner by the third respondent is against the principles of natural justice and against the corporation circulars and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the first respondent’s Proceedings APSRTC No. PA/19(66)RM/VSP dated 29-10-2009 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits. In the said case, this Court by order dated 13-09-2011 allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of this relief. In the instant case, the petitioner was terminated as contract driver by Proceedings No. M1/2(12)/VSP, dated 02-12-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was dismissed on 25-01-2010 vide Proceedings No. PA/19(2)10-VSK (R) and thereafter the petitioner preferred a review before the first respondent and the first
