JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: '....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the 1st respondent impugned proceedings No.GC1/19/2014-PO-1, dated 24.01.2015 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2015 and further direct the 1st respondent to fix the pay scale as regular driver due to utilized the services of petitioner after reversion as Helper post and pass such other orders'. 2. The brief case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Cleaner in the respondent corporation on 02.08.1975 and posted at anantapur Depot. Subsequently he got promotion as Grade-II Driver on 29.05.1986 and posted to Srikalahasti Depot and again transferred to Tirupati-I Depot in the year 1994. On 13.05.1995 the petitioner was taken over the bus Tirupati to Hyderabad, while he was proceeding towards Hyderabad a Lorry bearing No. aaQ 3611 coming on the opposite direction with high speed with heavy iron load and suddenly turned his vehicle to the right side and dashed the bus in the opposite direction, as a result of which the driver of the lorry succumbed to injuries and sustained fracture to the right leg of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner was suspended on 27.12.1995 and later an enquiry was concluded and removed the petitioner from service on 19.06.1996. assailing the removal order dated 19.06.1996, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Tirupati and the same was rejected on 02.09.1996. as against the said order, the petitioner filed a Review before the 3rd respondent, who partly allowed and reverted to the post of Helper and posted to Puttur Depot. The petitioner joined duty as Helper, in the meantime C.C.No.397 of 1995 was ended in acquittal as per Judgment dated 01.08.1998. 3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent to reconsider his case to the post of driver in view of criminal case ended in acquittal, which was rejected on 29.05.1999, though the petitioner was reverted to the post of Helper, but the respondent corporation has utilized him as a driver and paying the scale of helper only. While the petitioner was working as Helper, he was retired from service on 31.07.2010. While the petitioner was working as Helper, he was retired from service on 31.07.2010. Since the Criminal case ended in acquittal the petitioner is entitled to receive retirement benefits. Therefore the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent with request to consider his case for paying the retirement benefits treating his services as Driver, so far no action taken by the respondents. Therefore the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31429 of 2014 and this Court passed an order dated 20.10.2014 directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within two months. In compliance of the same the 1st respondent passed an erroneous order dated 24.01.2015 vide proceedings No. GC1/19/2014-PO-1, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence this writ petition is filed. 4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and contended that the petitioner involved in fatal accident on 13.05.1995 on the route Tirupati to Hyderabad due to lack of anticipation with a private lorry coming with opposite direction, resulting the death of Lorry driver besides severe injuries to 20 passengers. The Depot Manager, Tirupati has removed the petitioner from service on 19.06.1996. after considering the Review Petition, posted the petitioner to the post of Helper on reversion on 21.11.1996. On 31.07.2010 the petitioner retired from service from the respondent corporation on superannuation in the post of Helper. all the retirement benefits are applicable in the post of Helper, but not driver. Hence the petitioner is not eligible for retirement benefits in the post of driver, which he is entitled to. Further it is contended that the Regional Manager, Tirupati has informed that the petitioner is found guilty in the departmental enquiry, but awarded punishment lesser than removal. as such there is no provision for reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner and hence rejected the same. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. atchutananda Dondeti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ affidavit; whereas learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions urged in the counter affidavit. 7. It is very specific that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Shramik on 02.08.1975. Subsequently he was promoted as Driver Grade-II. 6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ affidavit; whereas learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions urged in the counter affidavit. 7. It is very specific that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Shramik on 02.08.1975. Subsequently he was promoted as Driver Grade-II. During his job an accident was occurred and driver of the lorry was died and received injuries about 20 passengers. Therefore the respondent corporation suspended him from services and initiated enquiry and found guilty, he removed from service. as against the same, he filed appeal, which was rejected. Finally he moved Review before the Regional Manager, Tirupati, who reverted back his former post of Helper permanently and posted him to Puttur Depot. The petitioner also reported to duty. On 31.07.2010 the petitioner was retired from service on superannuation in the post of Helper. Therefore the contention of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for benefits from the post Helper, but not as a driver. 8. Since entire enquiry proceedings concluded by the respondent authorities, posted the petitioner as a Helper on reversion and on superannuation he was retired from service as a Helper, he cannot claim the benefits under driver capacity. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of learned Counsel, this Court finds no merits in the case of the petitioner to seek benefits from the post of driver. 10. accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 11. as a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.