IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5186 of 2008 Between: S.B.Nasar S/o.Late Nasar Bin Omer, Narkatpally Depot, Nalgonda District R/o.H.No.23-3-305, Sultan Shahi Hyderabad-500065 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC,Narkatpally Depot Nalgonda District. 2 The Authority of Payment of Gratuity cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour court, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENS 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 issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 19.8.2007 and reminder dated 24.1.2008 with regards to payment of difference of gratuity amount for the removal period of 10 years which was treated by the Labour court as continuity of service all attendant benefits and full back wages and this Hon`ble High Court dismissed the Writ petition No.14227 of 1984 by the 1st respondent against the Award passed in ID.No.279 of 1980 on 29.11.1983 and non payment of difference of gratuity if the petitioner is eligible for difference of gratuity amount Rs.45,120/- (Rupees forty five thousand one hundred and twenty only) is as illegal, unjust contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt.P.Rajani Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation, dated 19.08.2007, in the context of difference of gratuity amount. The petitioner retired from A.P.S.R.T.C. as a Controller. There existed some dispute as to the payment of gratuity. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Labour and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. Admittedly, in the context of the amount payable for the period for which the petitioner was out of service, he raised a dispute before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, the second respondent herein, which was taken up as P.G. Case No.1 of 2004. Through the order, dated 27.06.2007, the second respondent directed the first respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.52,563/-. The amount has since been paid to the petitioner. Curiously, the petitioner made a representation, dated 19.08.2007, to the first respondent to pay a further sum of Rs.45,120/-. His grievance is that the representation is not disposed of. On the face of it, the writ petition is misconceived. Having secured adjudication in the hands of the second respondent, the petitioner cannot approach the first respondent once again. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the order, dated 27.06.2007, it was for him to avail the remedy of appeal. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ 13.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}