IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23851 of 2008 Between: Venkataiah S/o.Ramanna R/o.1-2-99, Near Primary School, Maganoor, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Narayanpet Depot, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. ...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 respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the respondent in withholding the petitioner's 17 years gratuity without any valid reasons as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 21of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in withholding the petitioner’s 17 years gratuity without any valid reason as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently to direct the respondent to grant the gratuity to which he is entitled. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation in the year 1976 and was removed from service on certain allegations. Aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute viz., I.D.No.222 of 1987, which was renumbered as ID No.29 of 1992 and the Labour Court-III Hydeabad vide award dated 31.3.1993 had set aside the order of removal and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service with all attendant benefits. Thereafter, again he joined in service in the month of May, 1993 and was also promoted as ADC in the year 1998 and further promoted as TI in January, 2007 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.1.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has put in 30 years of service i.e. from 1976 to 31.1.2007 and without giving any details of the amount, the respondent paid him only Rs.93,457/- and, therefore, he made a representation to the authorities on 22.5.2007 but so far no orders have been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was reinstated into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, he cannot be denied the retirement benefits for the period during which he was out of service and extension of the said benefit does not depend upon the actual physical service in the corporation. The learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court reported in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad [1] wherein this Court held that in a case where under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal of an employee and directed that the employee be reinstated into service with continuity of service, the management could not deny the payment of gratuity to the employee on his retirement for the period during which he was out of employment as a result of the order of removal. In the light of the judgment of this Court referred above and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties that the above said judgment governs the case, the writ petition is allowed in terms thereof and the respondents are directed to extend the monetary benefits viz., gratuity etc., to the petitioner for the period during which he was out of service N.V.RAMANA,J DT.23.12.2008 msv [1] 1998(3) ALD 76