IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5646 of 2008 Between: P. Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. Yella Rao, R/o. Flat No. 41 & 42, NBR Complex, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Waranal Region, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mahaboobabad Depot, Warangal District. .....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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation submitted by the Petitioner on 28- 12-2007 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to settle the terminal benefits and to release the amounts due to the Petitioner, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.PRADEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the Mahaboobabad Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. An accident took place on 26.08.2003, when the petitioner was driving a bus from Mahaboobabad to Kaleshwaram. Departmental proceedings were initiated and the same resulted in an order of removal, dated 14.05.2004. The appeal and the review filed by the petitioner were rejected. The petitioner filed I.D.No.30 of 2006 in the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Through the award, dated 01.06.2007, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh candidate without the benefit of continuity of service or back wages. Even before the award came to be passed, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, he was unable to reap the benefits of it. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been extended the benefits of provident fund, etcetera consequent upon his removal. He claims to have made a representation, dated 28.12.2007, in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition was listed for admission on 17.03.2008. It was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel to verify as to whether the petitioner was extended any monetary benefits consequent upon his removal from service. It is stated that no such benefits were extended, since the petitioner did not submit any application. Though the Labour Court granted the relief of fresh appointment to the petitioner, he is handicapped from availing the benefit thereof, since he attained the age of superannuation. For all practical purposes, the order of removal became final. Unlike in the case of dismissal, an employee who is removed from service is entitled for the benefits provided for under the relevant rules. The respondents are under the obligation to extend the same. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner and extend necessary benefits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall submit his claim forms along with the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 19.03.2008 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}