IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27612 of 2008 Between: M.S.Mahaboob Ali S/o. Lal Mohammed Nagarkurnool Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Mahabubnagar Region, at Mahabubnagar, A.P. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nagarkurnool Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, 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 Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employment period (i.e., 27.12.1981 to 11.06.1986) in concerned with his removal 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. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR 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 not paying him the gratuity amount for his out of employment period viz., from 27.12.1981 to 11.6.1986 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to pay the said amount forthwith. 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 was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 26.2.1975. While he was working as conductor in Wanaparthy Bus depot, he was removed from service on certain cash and ticket irregularities. He challenged the same before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court by its award in ID No.36 of 1985 dated 2.1.1986 directed his reinstatement into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Thereafter, he was reinstated and subsequently retired from service on 31.5.2008 as TI-III after attaining superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the Labour Court has awarded continuity of service, the respondents are not paying him the gratuity for the period he was out of employment. 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 viz., from 27.12.1981 to 11.6.1986. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.31.12.2008 msv [1] 1998(3) ALD 76