Hon'ble AMBWANI, ACTG. C.J.—We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Special Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 03.03.2014, by which on the interpretation of the settlement arrived at between the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation) and the employees, whose services were terminated, entered into in the Supreme Court, on the basis of which consent order was passed, learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 08.12.2006, by which the amount of salary paid of notional pay fixation from the date of termination, was sought to be withdrawn from the respondents. 3. Learned Single Judge held that it is evident from clause No.(2) of the consent decree, that the workman shall not be entitled to back wages/ allowances and any other monetary benefits from the date of termination as a result of the decree passed in their favour in the civil suits, giving rise to the proceedings. The clause No.(4) was however attracted in the case, in which the workmen were held entitled to reinstatement in the respective posts/status held by them, at the time of termination of their services. 4. It was further held by learned Single Judge that the Executive Director, while passing the order dated 08.12.2006, had read condition No.(2) in isolation, and had not cared to read condition No.(4), according to which, the petitioner could not be denied continuity and on that basis, notional pay fixation for fixation of salary on reinstatement. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation that learned Single Judge has erred in relying upon the earlier decision of Single Bench, dated 17.05.2012, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8508/2009- Rajendra Kumar Sharma vs. RSRTC & Others, and has misinterpreted the settlement, to entitle the respondent to the notional fixation of pay from the date of termination of his service. It is submitted that there are about two hundred similarly situated employees, who will be benefiting from the interpretation of the consent order, given in the judgment, causing unnecessary financial burden on the Corporation. 6. It is submitted that there are about two hundred similarly situated employees, who will be benefiting from the interpretation of the consent order, given in the judgment, causing unnecessary financial burden on the Corporation. 6. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the terms of the consent decree are reproduced as follows:- “(1) That the Corporation shall not initiate or enquire into the charges/misconduct based on which the services of the workmen have been terminated and the said charges shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. (2) That the workman shall not be entitled to back wages/allowances and any other monetary benefits from the date of termination as a result of the decree passed in their favour in the civil suits giving rise to the present proceedings and the decree to that extent are set aside. (3) That the action initiated by the workman for claim and recovery of the amount on account of wages, allowances or any other benefits from the date of termination against the Corporation shall automatically be treated to have been withdrawn on the basis of the present order. (4) That the workman will stand reinstated in their respective position/status as they held at the time of the termination of their services i.e. to say that daily wages, probationers, temporary and regular workmen will stand reinstated in the same post/status held by them at the time of termination of their services. (5) That the period of absence from the date of termination till joining on reinstatement shall be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits, such as pension, gratuity and seniority for future promotion. He shall not be entitled for any past promotion. However the case for future promotions shall be considered in accordance with the rules. (6) That the workmen shall report for duty within a period of 4 weeks to the General manager (Legal), Head office, Jaipur and his order of posting shall be issued within 15 days from the said date for joining his place of posting. In case the workman fails to join his duty within the period prescribed then this compromise shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the case of the workman pending shall be treated to have been dismissed and he shall not be entitled to raise the said dispute afresh in future. In case the workman fails to join his duty within the period prescribed then this compromise shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the case of the workman pending shall be treated to have been dismissed and he shall not be entitled to raise the said dispute afresh in future. (7) All proceedings initiated by the workman before any Court, Tribunal or authority shall cease and stand closed as a result of this order. (8) This order does not preclude the appellants from taking disciplinary action against the workman under law, if the circumstances so warrant nor does this order preclude the appellants from proceeding with other enquiries which were not concluded in view of the orders of termination already made.” 7. The object, with which the settlement was arrived at, and the terms of consent decree, if read together, do not admit any other interpretation, except that the workmen will be reinstated in the respective posts/status, as they held at the time of termination of their services, that is to say daily wager, probationers, temporary or regular workmen. The charges against the workmen were withdrawn vide clause Nos.(1) and (4), the workmen were to be reinstated, however without any back wages/allowances and any other monetary benefits, as per clause No.(2). Clause No.(3), provided that any action initiated by the workman for claim and recovery of the amount on account of wages, allowances or any other benefits from the date of termination against the Corporation, will be treated to have been withdrawn. Clause No.(5), provided for counting his period of absence for the purposes of pension, gratuity and seniority for future promotion. 8. The clauses No.(1) to (5), if read together, clearly demonstrate that the workman was to be put back in the same position, as he was on the date of his termination without any monetary benefits prior to the date of his reinstatement. The order of his reinstatement was to be passed without visiting them with any adverse consequence. The Corporation was, however, left with liberty to take disciplinary action against the workman, if the circumstances so warrant. 9. The order of his reinstatement was to be passed without visiting them with any adverse consequence. The Corporation was, however, left with liberty to take disciplinary action against the workman, if the circumstances so warrant. 9. The settlement clearly provided that the workman will be reinstated, and not reemployed, which means without any ambiguity or doubt that the workman will be relegated to the same position, as he was on the date of termination, which necessarily implied that the workman will be given notional fixation of his pay from the date of his initial appointment, to determine his pay and allowances on the date of his reinstatement. Any other meaning assigned to the term reinstatement would defeat the entire object of the settlement. 10. We may further observe that so far as Krishan Kumar Sharma, a fellow employee, who was also a party to the settlement, is concerned, the appellant-Corporation had implemented the order by fixing notional pay from the date of his initial appointment till the date of reinstatement. The pay and allowances for the petitioner were also fixed in the same manner. The Corporation however appears to be wrongly advised to give an incorrect interpretation to the consent decree, to withdraw the pay and allowances, which were given by notional fixation of pay on reinstatement and to recover the differential amount paid to the respondent. 11. There is no merit in this Special Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The time for compliance of the order is extended by two months from today.