B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Harinath, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. The matter is taken up for final disposal at their request. ( 2 ) RULE nisi. ( 3 ) THE following few facts may have to be noticed for the purpose of effective disposal of this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 2-3-1979. He was declared unfit and forced to retire from service vide proceedings dt. 14-9-1992. The respondent-Corporation by an order dt. 18-12-1996 directed the reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of Conductor. On reinstatement he was posted to Mahaboobnagar Depot. The reinstatement itself was pursuant to the directions of this Court dt. 8-10-1996 in w. P. No. 8793 of 1994 directing the petitioner herein to undergo medical examination and basing upon the medical report, the authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the report and pass appropriate orders subject to suitability for the post of Conductor. The petitioner was accordingly subjected to medical examination and he was found fit vide medical certificate dt. 6-12-1996 issued by the Medical Officer, APSRTC, Tarnaka, hyderabad. Thus it is clear that the petitioner was reinducted into the service as the Conductor without any condition whatsoever. ( 5 ) IT is stated that on reinstatement the third respondent herein fixed the petitioner s pay at Rs. 1,645. 00 as if he was appointed as a fresh candidate, though the petitioner was reinstated into service and the present basic pay of the petitioner is rs. 3,848/ -. It is alleged that the petitioner s juniors are getting Rs. 5,500. 00. The respondents have not protected the last drawn pay of the petitioner and not added yearly increments to his basic pay while reinstating him into service. It is submitted that the petitioner s pay has to be protected under sub-regulation 5 of 6 (a) of the a. P. S. R. T. C Employees Service Regulations. ( 6 ) THERE is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to appreciate the case of the petitioner that he has been reinstated into service under the orders dt. 18-12-1996 without any condition whatsoever. ( 6 ) THERE is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to appreciate the case of the petitioner that he has been reinstated into service under the orders dt. 18-12-1996 without any condition whatsoever. The petitioner in this case even need not rely upon sub-regulation 5 of 6 (a) of the a. P. S. R. T. C. Employees Service regulations. The said Regulation has no application to the facts of the case. But there is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to hold that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service for all practical purposes, since he is reinstated into service after he was made to retire from service on 14-9-1992 without any condition. That reinstatement itself is pursuant to the directions of this court after subjecting the petitioner herein for a medical test. Obviously the petitioner was made to retire on 14-9-1992 without any basis whatsoever. ( 7 ) IN such view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits right from the date of his forcible retirement on 14-9-1992 upto his reinstatement into service on 18-12-1996. The arrears of salary may have to be paid by the respondent- corporation to the petitioner. He is also entitled for regularization of service from the date when he was kept out of employment. This aspect of the matter has been concluded in the order passed by this cpurt in W. P. No. 26859 of 1999. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for protection of his last drawn pay (scale) in the cadre of- Conductor before his retirement. The respondents are required to fix the pay of the petitioner by paying the arrears. The respondent-Corporation is directed to add all the yearly increments to the petitioner in the cadre of Conductor by treating the petitioner as if he is in continuous service of the Corporation. The order dt. 14-9-1992 requiring the petitioner herein to retire from service on the ground of fitness (sic. unfitness) is to be ignored. There shall be an order to refix the pay of the petitioner by giving all the yearly increments. The pay (scale) of the petitioner shall accordingly be refixed. The arrears in this regard shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of.