IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13071 of 2008 Between: N. Balraj S/o N. Narayanswamy R/o H. No. 13-59, NGO's Colony, Medchal, Ranga Reddy district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. state Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500 020 2 A.P. state Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Depot Manager, Picket Depot, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of Respondent Corporation in withholding the gratuity for the period from 12-3-1986 to 23-7-1992 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner retired from service, as Assistant Depot Clerk, on 30.11.2007. Though he was extended all the retirement benefits, he was denied the gratuity for the period from 12.03.1986 to 23.07.1992. He was removed from service through proceedings, dated 12.03.1986 and was reinstated on 23.07.1992, on the strength of an award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.608 of 1988. The petitioner states that the Labour Court granted the relief of continuity of service and the respondents are not justified in denying the gratuity for that period. The only controversy is as to the entitlement of the petitioner to be paid the gratuity for the period referred to above. Though he was not in active service during that period, the relief granted by the Labour Court, as to continuity of service, would entitle him to be paid the gratuity also. This Court has taken such a view in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad[1]. Following the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall pay the gratuity for the period between 12.03.1986 and 23.07.1992, in case the Labour Court, in its award in I.D.No.608 of 1988, has directed continuity of service, while directing reinstatement. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J. Dated:24.06.2008 GJ [1] 1998 (3) ALD 76