JUDGMENT : A short question arises for consideration in this intra court appeal. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal, though the matter is listed for admission. 2. Appellant is a conductor working under the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. On the allegation that he had failed to issue tickets to 15 passengers travelling from Katti Sangavi Mahalaxmi Temple to Jewargi, an enquiry was held against him. He was dismissed from service on 28.01.2002. Appellant raised a dispute before the Labour Court. The reference was dismissed holding that charges had been proved. Writ petition filed against the said order of the Labour Court was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 10th June 2011. 3. The learned Single Judge on overall consideration of the facts and evidence on record, found that as per the version of the workman, 15 passengers had refused to pay the fare and there was a quarrel; the bus was being taken to the Police Station and at that stage, Checking Staff boarded the bus and that the said version of the workman and the driver, who testified to that effect remained unchallenged, as they were not cross-examined by the Management. In the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge found that as there was a group of large number of passengers, who boarded the bus and in a very short gap of time the Checking Staff had checked the bus, contention of the workman that normal rule of “issue and start” could not be adhered to had to be accepted. Having recorded such a finding, the writ petition was disposed of by issuing the following direction: “In that view of the matter, the order of the Labour Court is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service without back-wages. Writ petition is allowed.” 4. This order was challenged in appeal in Writ Appeal No. 10288/2011. A Division Bench of this Court having reconsidered the entire matter, concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service without back-wages. Writ petition is allowed.” 4. This order was challenged in appeal in Writ Appeal No. 10288/2011. A Division Bench of this Court having reconsidered the entire matter, concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The Division Bench repelled the contention of the Corporation that at least minimum penalty should have been imposed on the employee, making it clear that in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, there was no fault on the part of the employee, therefore, question of imposing any penalty would not arise. 5. As a result of the order passed by the Division Bench confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, appellant herein was reinstated and was accorded benefit of continuity of service, re-fixing his pay by extending notional benefit of increments earned. It is only during April 2016, pay scale given to the appellant-workman was reduced based on the opinion furnished by the Law Officer of the Corporation to the effect that reinstatement into service with continuity of service without back-wages attracts benefit only for terminal benefits and not for other benefits. An endorsement in this regard was issued to the appellant on 01.07/08/2016. 6. This made the appellant to approach this court in Writ Petition No. 200716/2017 challenging the said endorsement and seeking a direction to the respondents herein to extend benefit of continuity of service with consequential benefits restoring his pay scale to Rs.13,440/- from the month of October 2016 and to release annual increments. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents-Corporation. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of APSRTC and Another vs. S. Narsagoud [(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 212], when an employee is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back-wages and no specific directions are issued stating that the employee shall be entitled to all other consequential benefits, the increments earned during the period he was out of duty could not be notionally reckoned. Assailing this order, the present appeal is filed. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri P. Vilas Kumar Marthand Rao and the learned counsel for the respondents Smt. Ratan N. Shivayogimath. 8. Assailing this order, the present appeal is filed. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri P. Vilas Kumar Marthand Rao and the learned counsel for the respondents Smt. Ratan N. Shivayogimath. 8. On a careful perusal of the entire materials on record including the judgments cited at the bar, particularly the judgment in S. Narsagoud’s case, what emerges is, though the employee was dismissed from service on charges of misconduct, the learned Single Judge has clearly and categorically found that misconduct alleged against the appellant-workman was not proved, inasmuch as the defence set up by the employee that he could not issue ticket to 15 passengers, as a large group entered the bus and the bus was checked soon thereafter by the Checking Staff and as a result of quarrel that ensued, the bus was taken to the Police Station had to be believed. This finding has been affirmed by the Division Bench. In the result, charge of misconduct leveled against the employee has been held not proved. However, while moulding the relief, the learned Single Judge has directed reinstatement with continuity of service by denying back-wages. It is in this background, the nature of the relief granted to the employee has to be examined. 9. Indeed, as we have referred to hereinabove, the Division Bench repelled the contention of the Corporation that some punishment, at least, had to be imposed against the workman. Thus, this is a case where no punishment is imposed against the employee. Denial of back-wages in the facts of the case is not the result of a punishment imposed. Hence, there was absolutely no justification for the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation to interpret the order passed by the learned Single Judge confirmed in appeal to read into the direction that continuity of service in the facts of the case could only be for the purpose of payment of pentionary and other terminal benefits and not for the purpose of fixing the notional pay on reinstatement. The order directing continuity of service, in the facts of the present case, has to be construed as the employee being entitled for fixation of his pay treating him as if he has continued in service. 10. The order directing continuity of service, in the facts of the present case, has to be construed as the employee being entitled for fixation of his pay treating him as if he has continued in service. 10. The learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the judgment in S.Narsagoud’s case dealt with a similar controversy and the principle applied to the facts of the said case were applicable. 11. In the facts of the said case, the employee had remained unauthorizedly absent. He was penalized. While directing his reinstatement, backwages were denied. However, continuity of service was ordered. In such circumstance, the Apex Court held that having regard to the nature of penalty imposed against the workman who was found guilty of unauthorized absence, such an employee could not claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of his unauthorized absence, in the absence of a specific direction in that regard, merely because the direction issued was to reinstate him with continuity in service. 12. As already adverted to above, in the facts of the present case, misconduct alleged against the employee is not proved. The employee has been ordered to be reinstated by extending continuity of service but by denying back-wages. In such circumstance, relief granted to the employee cannot be restricted to hold that continuity of service should be understood as notional benefit of service only for the purpose of terminal benefits. In the facts of the case on hand, the expression continuity of service encompasses within its fold notional benefit of increments earned during the period the employee was out of service due to the illegal order of dismissal. Hence, the appeal is allowed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200716/2017 dated 28.08.2017 is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned endorsement Annexure-A issued by respondent-North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is set aside and a direction is issued to the respondents to re-fix the pay scale and pay the amount due to the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.