HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI W.V.M.P. NO. 1622 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No. 16660 OF 2007 Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between Union of India, Rep.by Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi and another Petitioners AND Sri G. Kishan Rao and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO. 16660 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: The notice dated 22.5.2007 issued by the third respondent herein on the application of the first respondent calling upon the second petitioner to answer with regard to the non-payment of difference in gratuity amount to him under Payment of Gratuity Act (Central) Rules, 1972, the present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of prohibition from proceeding further pursuant to the said notice. The mother of the first respondent was appointed on 22.02.1980 on contingent basis and in the cadre of Safaiwala, her services were regularized on 5.8.1994. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of her appointment order, the Rules applicable to all the Central Government employees and their status shall be applicable to her. She died on 20.5.2006 and her son i.e. the first respondent was paid terminal benefits and a sum of Rs.70,080/- has been paid as Gratuity, giving the benefit of 50% of the services rendered by her as contingent worker prior to her regularization, in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for payment of gratuity. While so, the third respondent issued notice dated 22.5.2007 on the application of the first respondent herein, stating that the second petitioner has failed to pay the difference of gratuity amount to him and, therefore, the third respondent called upon the second petitioner to appear before him in person or through a person duly authorized for the purpose of answering all material questions relating thereto on 22.6.2007 and to produce documents, if any, upon which reliance is intended to be placed. On 6.8.2007, when the writ petition has come up for admission, the impugned notice dated 22.5.2007 issued by the third respondent under Payment of Gratuity Act, was stayed. The first respondent herein, filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the contention of the writ petitioner that since his mother is covered under the CCS (CCA) and CCS (Pension) Rules and as her services were regularized, Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable in her case. Inasmuch as the impugned notice only requires appearance of the second petitioner on 22.06.2007, either in person or through a person duly authorized to answer all material questions relating to the complaint of non- payment of difference of gratuity to the first respondent and to produce such other evidence and documents on which reliance was sought to be placed, I feel that the ends of justice would be met by reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all such objections before the third respondent, pursuant to the notice dated 22.5.2007 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction and the interim order dated 6.8.2007 granted by this court stands vacated. WVMP NO.1622 of 2008 is accordingly ordered. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari June 24, 2010 MAS