IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1688 of 2007 Between: P.Nakshatra Reddy, s/o Tamma Reddy, R/o MIG-231, ABHP Colony, Adoni-518 302, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Kurnool Depot, Kurnool. ...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 2nd respondent 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 not paying the diﬀerence of gratuity and pension for four months as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for diﬀerence of gratuity from the date of his appointment till the date of passing of the award and also pension for the months of May, June, July and August, 2006 and pass such other order or orders as deemed ﬁt and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. W.V.S. RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1688 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying diﬀerence of gratuity, and pension for four months as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for diﬀerence of gratuity from the date of his appointment till the date of passing of the Award and also pension for the months of May, June, July and August, 2006. Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation with eﬀect from 6-8-1973. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk and further as Depot Clerk. While working as Depot Clerk, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 30-6-2002. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the same, ﬁnally, he was removed from service by an Order dated 4-4-2003. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.335 of 2003. The Labour Court, by its Award dated 25-7-2005 set aside the removal order dated 4-4-2003 and directed to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement instead of removal from service. That attained finality. It seems, subsequent to the Award passed by the Labour Court, petitioner made a representation on 19-12-2005 stating that he may be permitted to resign from the post, as per the Award of the Labour Court, Anantapur, the Depot Manager passed an Order on 22-12-2005 accepting the resignation of the petitioner from service of the Corporation with eﬀect from 4-4-2003 i.e. date of removal from service, as per the Award of the Labour Court. From the above, it appears, petitioner made a faint eﬀort to invite a separate order from the Depot Manager. Whether it is compulsory retirement as per the Award of the Labour Court or resignation by the petitioner, that would not make any diﬀerence insofar as claiming his gratuity and other terminal beneﬁts are concerned. Now the very acceptance of resignation by the Depot Manager on 22-12-2005 with eﬀect from 4-4-2003 is sought to be challenged. Whether such order is challenged or not, the situation does not alter. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondents have rightly calculated 30 years of service for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits including gratuity etc. However, the further grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid 4 months pension i.e. for the months from May to August,2006. If such pension is not paid, respondents may verify and pay the pension, if it is due to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 26-9-2008 prk