- (1.) Concededly the matter is covered in favour of the petitioner by the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 3339 of 1990 (Balwinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 12th November, 1990. The facts of the case in Balwinder Singh's case and the present case are identical. As in that case so also in this, it is admitted position that some junior conductors to the petitioner were retained in service whereas the petitioner was asked to quit by observing that his services are no longer required as there was no vacancy. Junior conductors were retained in service as they had obtained stay from this Court in various writ petitions. The Division Bench in Balwinder Singh's case observed as under :- "Since, it is now admitted case of the parties that the writ- petitioners are senior to some of the Conductors who have been allowed to continue by virtue of the stay order granted by this Court, it is made clear that the writ-petitioners would be put back into service and if services of any of the Conductors are to be dispensed with, then it will be junior-most Conductors and not of the writ-petitioners. The writ petitioner will be reinstated in service with continuity of service, within a fortnight of the receipt of this order. However, the petitioners will not be entitled to any back wages as they have not worked for the intervening period." In this case as well the same directions are issued i.e. writ petitioner would be put back into service and if services of any of the Conductors are to be dispensed with, then it will be of junior most Conductor and not of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner will be reinstated in service with continuity of service, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to any back wages as he has not worked for the intervening period. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.;