THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24055 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of A.P.S.R.T.C. as a Cleaner in the year 1988. He was promoted as Mechanic in the year 1994. Through proceedings, dated 21.10.2003, the Depot Manager, Banswada, removed the petitioner from service on the allegation of unauthorized absence. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner filed I.D.No.87 of 2005 in Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Through award, dated 12.08.2008, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without backwages. Based on the same, the Regional Manager issued proceedings dated 05.12.2008, requiring the petitioner to report to duty within one week. The petitioner received the said order on 08.12.2008. The petitioner states that his mother expired at the relevant point of time and accordingly, he could not report to duty. Through proceedings, dated 26.02.2009, the Regional Manager cancelled the orders dated 05.12.2008, on the ground that the petitioner did not report to duty within the stipulated time. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings. The petitioner contends that after completing the ceremonies on the death of his mother, he reported to duty in the last week of December and that he was not aware of the passing of order, dated 26.02.2009 at all, till the present writ petition is filed. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner did not report to duty, even though the order of reinstatement was served upon him. It is pleaded that the petitioner, who was removed from service on the charges of unauthorized absence, has virtually repeated the same, after the Labour Court passed the award. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The order of removal passed against the petitioner was set aside by the Labour Court and the limited relief of reinstatement with continuity of service was granted. He ought to have been careful and vigilant in reaping the benefits of the award. It is not in dispute that the petitioner received a copy of the proceedings dated 05.12.2008 on 08.12.2008. In case, he had any difficulty in joining the duty, he ought to have made a representation to the concerned authorities. Failure to report to duty within the stipulated time would naturally result in denial of the benefit. One fact, which however weighs with this Court, is that there was not much gap between the order of reinstatement on the one hand and the proceedings, dated 26.02.2009, on the other hand. Added to that, the petitioner claims that he was not served with the copy of the order, dated 26.02.2009 at all. This gains support from the fact that the said proceedings were not challenged in the writ petition. It is only through amendment that the plea was raised on the basis of the facts pleaded by the respondent. This Court is of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to join duty by denying the benefits for the period, during which he was out of service, but directing that he shall be entitled to count his service prior to the date of termination, for the purpose of calculating the terminal benefits and increments. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that- (a) the proceedings, dated 26.,02.2009 shall stand set aside; (b) that the petitioner shall report to duty on or before 01.09.2011; (c) he shall not be entitled to count service to avail other benefits for the period from 21.10.2003 to 01.09.2011; (d) he shall however be entitled to count his service rendered by him anterior to that date for the purpose of calculation of terminal benefits and increments etc.; and (e) in case, the petitioner fails to join duty, as directed above, the order, dated 26.02.2009 shall hold good. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.08.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24055 of 2010 Date: 23.08.2011 JSU