IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24401 of 2008 Between: T. Jeevan Rao, E - 66871 TTI, Head Quarters Enforcement Squad, Hyderabad, S/o. Lakshman Rao, Aged : 59 years, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, O/o. Regional Manager, Karimnagar. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying petitioners terminal benefits like Gratuity and other benefits for the Removal period i.e from 2-8-1998 to 24-9-1991 and for the removal period i.e from 10-1-1995 to 3-3-1996 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and as much consequently direct the respondents herein to pay the Gratuity by counting the previous period from 2-8-1988 to 24-9-1991 and for the removal period i.e from 10-1-1995 to 3-3-1996 along with interest forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 24401 of 2008 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondents- APSRTC on 27.11.1976. While working as such, he was issued with a charge sheet alleging certain cash and ticket irregularities, for which he submitted his explanation denying the said charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, and based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was removed from service, by order dated 16.12.1988, which was confirmed in appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 25 of 1990, and the Labour Court, vide award dated 04.06.1990, set aside the removal order passed against the petitioner and directed the respondents-APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. Pursuant to the said award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 24.09.1991. Again, while the petitioner was working at Korutla Depot, he was issued with a charge sheet alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 18.06.1992, and after conducting a regular enquiry, based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Regional Manager, and the Regional Manager ordered to reinstate the petitioner into service duly postponing his annual increments for a period of two years which shall have the effect on his future increments and the intervening period from the date of removal to the date of joining was ordered to be treated as “Not on Duty” for all purposes. Against the said orders, the petitioner filed I.D. No. 71 of 1995, and the Labour Court, vide award dated 12.08.1997, directed the respondent- APSRTC to continue the petitioner with continuity of service along with all attendant benefits in respect of increments only and ordered to withhold one increment without any cumulative effect and to treat the period of absence as leave or medical leave for which, he was eligible. The Labour Court also held that the petitioner is not entitled to the backwages. Pursuant to the said award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 03.03.1996. Subsequently, on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service in the month of June 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of his retirement, the respondents did not pay him terminal benefits like gratuity and other benefits for the periods from 02.08.1988 to 24.09.1991 and from 10.01.1995 to 03.03.1996 i.e., from the date of passing of order of removal till the date of his reinstatement into service by virtue of the awards. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- APSRTC that the subject-matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in M. Rama Rao v. Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC[1], wherein it was held that when once the Labour Court set asides the order of removal and directs reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, the respondents-APSRTC cannot deny payment of gratuity to the petitioner for the period for which he was out of service as a result of the order of removal. Inasmuch as the Labour Court, vide its awards dated 04.06.1990 and 12.08.1997 passed in I.D. Nos. 25 of 1990 and 71 of 1995 respectively, while setting aside the orders of removal passed against the petitioner, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and without backwages, the petitioner is entitled to be paid gratuity for the period he remained out of employment from 02.08.1988 to 24.09.1991 and from 10.01.1995 to 03.03.1996, i.e. from the date of removal order till the date of his reinstatement into service, and the action of the respondents in denying gratuity to the petitioner for the aforesaid period, is illegal and arbitrary. Since the facts of this case, are squarely covered by the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M. Rama Rao v. Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC, following the said judgment, and for the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition has to be disposed of, and it is accordingly disposed of in terms thereof. The respondents shall compute the gratuity payable to the petitioner taking into account the out of employment period i.e. from 02.08.1988 to 24.09.1991 and from 10.01.1995 to 03.03.1996 i.e., from the date of passing of order of removal till the date of his reinstatement into service by virtue of the awards of the Labour Court, and after computing, pay the balance gratuity to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 23.04.2009 BCJ [1] 1998 (3) ALD 76