JUDGMENT : After hearing both the parties an order was dictated in open Court on 07.10.2016. Unfortunately, the stenographer who had taken the dictation, Mr. Avneet Kumar Singh met with an accident and fractured his leg, while he was on leave in Jharkhand, his home State. He has since been operated upon and has now been advised to take three months rest. He is now on medical leave at Ranchi. Consequently the orders dictated could not be transcribed by him. Since he is presently not available, this matter was listed on 10.11.2016 for re-hearing and thereafter on 15.11.2016 due to the events narrated above. 2. Both the parties are present before this Court and have no objections if the matter be heard again under the circumstances. 3. Heard both the parties. 4. The petitioner was a Driver in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (from hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”). While driving a bus from Mussoorie to Dehradun, the bus which the petitioner was driving met with an accident on 10.10.1990. Consequently, due to this casualty, the petitioner was removed from services. As per the department, it was a case of negligence in driving. Petitioner subsequently raised a labour dispute regarding his removal from service before the Labour Court where the award of the Labour Court was against the petitioner. This award was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in a writ petition where the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed by this Court reinstating the petitioner in service, without any back wages. This order was challenged by the Corporation before the Hon’ble Apex Court where the matter was remanded back before this Court for fresh consideration. This Court re-considered the matter and ultimately disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2007 directing the Corporation to re-hear the matter again after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and where the matter of back wages be considered. Ultimately, the Corporation had reinstated the petitioner in service on 07.02.2008 without any back wages for the period he remained out of service i.e. from 1993 to 2008. 5. The petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.01.2014. The matter is regarding the fixation of his salary and payment of post retirement benefits. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given these benefits. 5. The petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.01.2014. The matter is regarding the fixation of his salary and payment of post retirement benefits. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given these benefits. Though he is not liable to be given the back wages for the period he remained out of service i.e. from 1993 to 2008 but ultimately what has been done by the Corporation is that he has been reinstated in service. It is admittedly not a case of fresh appointment. Therefore, while fixation of his salary and post retirement benefits, he was liable to be treated in continuous service in view of the definition contained in Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 6. Learned counsel for the Corporation on the other hand submits that regarding this, a representation of the petitioner is already pending before the Managing Director of the Corporation, on which all the grounds will be considered by the authority concerned by passing a speaking order. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the Managing Director to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order therein, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8. However, it is made clear that petitioner is not liable to be given back wages for the period he remained out of service i.e. from 1993 to 2008, as the order passed is of 2008 where the petitioner was reinstated in service without back wages and which has been accepted by the petitioner but regarding the fixation of salary since this has implication on the quantum of his gratuity and other benefits, the representation shall be decided in the light of the above directions.