IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13875 of 2009 Between: K. Ramesh Rao, E.No. 100799, R/o. Potchamma Basthi, 1st Lancer, Head Quarter line, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, rep by Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyuderabad-II depot, Hyderabad. .....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 issue writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner by counting the continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment to date of retirement ie. from 21-2-1983 to 31-3-2009 (for 26 years 1 month) including the continuity of service granted by Hon'ble Labour Court in ID No. 334/1992 dated 6-12-1993 (after deducting the amount paid from gratuity) with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13875 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is working as Conductor with the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. It is not in dispute that he was placed under suspension and he was removed from service by order dated 13.05.1986. However, I.D.No.334 of 1992 filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad was allowed by order dated 06.12.1993 thereby setting aside the order of removal dated 13.05.1986 and directing the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated and he had retired from service on 31.03.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner claims that in view of the order dated 06.12.1993 in I.D.No.334 of 1992, he is entitled for the retirement benefits taking into consideration the service from the date of removal till reinstatement. However, the Corporation had erroneously withheld the said amounts in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is field. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, relied upon a decision of this Court in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Central Bus Station, Hyderabad and another[1] and submitted that having regard to the ratio laid down in the said decision, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be justified. The petitioner therein was also similarly situated and this Court, after hearing both the parties, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Corporation to compute the gratuity payable to the petitioner therein taking into consideration out of employment period into account and after so computing to pay the balance of gratuity to the petitioner therein. Since admittedly, the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above order, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to compute the gratuity and other benefits payable to the petitioner taking into consideration the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment to date of retirement i.e. 21.02.1983 to 31.03.2009 and pay the amounts within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 07-08-2009 KLP [1] 1998(2)ALT 534