THE HON’BLE MR JUSTISCE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17457 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C., on 23-08- 1972. He was removed from service, vide orders dated 13-12-2002. Aggrieved thereby, he filed I.D.No.1 of 2003 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. An Award was passed on 19-01-2005, setting aside the order of removal, directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with attendant benefits, continuity of service, and back wages, to the extent of 80%. Respondents filed Writ Petition No.23010 of 2005, questioning the Award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition was dismissed, and thereafter, they filed Writ Appeal No.697 of 2006. The writ appeal was disposed of, on 13-03-2007, upholding the Award passed by the Labour Court, but reducing the back wages to 60%. On the basis of the Award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service, on 11-07-2005. Shortly thereafter, he retired from service, with effect from 31-08-2005. His grievance is that, the respondents are not extending any benefit so far, though the proceedings, in relation to his removal from service, have attained finality. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Whatever may have been the justification for the respondents in not extending the benefits to the petitioner as long as the proceedings were pending before this Court, they cannot withhold the same, once the writ appeal was disposed of, on 13-03- 2007. The various benefits accrued to an employee on retirement, almost give rise to a right to property, and are the results of contribution made during the service. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 2 to 4, to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 10-09-2007, made by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the respondents are of the view, that any benefits claimed by the petitioner are not extendable to him, they shall furnish reasons therefor. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12-08-2008. KO