IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3022 of 2008 Between: S.Mazharuddin, S/o.S.A.Quddus, Retd Cy.Superintendent (T) (E-39363) APSRTC, Shadnagar Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar, A.P., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager,APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region, Mahaboobnagar, A.P., 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Shadnagar Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar, A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandam us declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employment period 22-04-1972 to 01-12-1979 i.e. from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity with interest for the said period and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3022 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner worked as an employee in the A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service, on disciplinary grounds. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he approached the Labour Court, Hyderabad, by filing I.D.No.24 of 1974. Through its award, dated 02.07.1977, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Back wages were denied. The petitioner has since been reinstated into service and later on retired, on attaining the age of superannuation. His grievance is that the respondents did not extend the benefit of gratuity, for the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement. Placing reliance upon an order passed by this Court in M.Rama Rao vs. Asst. Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderaabad[1], the petitioner claims the gratuity for the said period. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. In clear terms, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. Therefore, no break in service had taken place. Gratuity is payable for the entire period, during which the employee is in service. Denial of back wages does not have any bearing on the entitlement to be paid gratuity. In M.Rama Rao’s case (1 supra), this Court took the view that wherever reinstatement is directed with continuity of service, the employee is entitled for payment of gratuity, for the period, during which he was out of service, as a result of order of removal. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of gratuity to the petitioner, for the period between the date of order of removal and the date of reinstatement, in pursuance of the award in I.D.No.24 of 1974. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 09.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3022 of 2008 Date: 09.04.2008 JSU [1] 1998(3) ALD 76