IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15873 of 2008 Between: K. Prabhakar ReddyS/o. Yadi Reddy APSRTC, Ranigunk-I Bus Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad,. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ranigunj-I Bus Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Secunderabad City Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employment period 27-7-1981 to March, 1985 (i.e from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement) as illegal, bad arbitrary, and contrary to the Judgments of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity with interest for the said period. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., on 08.10.1977 and was removed from service on 27.07.1981. He approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16759 of 1984. The writ petition was allowed on 04.02.2005. The order of removal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service. A direction was issued to the effect that the petitioner shall not be entitled to salary or other emoluments for the period from 01.08.1981, till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2008, and was retired from service. While extending the retirement benefits, the petitioner was not paid the gratuity for the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement. He challenges the action of the respondents. It is asserted that the period between 27.07.1981 and the date of reinstatement, consequent on the orders of this Court, was treated for extending the benefit of promotion and increments to the petitioner, and there is no reason why the gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By its very nature, gratuity is a benefit extendable to the employee for the services rendered by him. This, naturally, could be only for the period during which the actual service is rendered. However, whenever an order of removal of an employee is set aside, and the competent Court grants the relief of continuity of service, a presumption has to be drawn to the effect that even during the period of removal also, the employee is said to be in service. In fact, this Court held in several cases that whenever the Labour Court directs continuity of service, the employee would be entitled to the benefit of gratuity for the period during which he was out of service. Such, however, is not the case here. In clear terms, this Court held in W.P.No.16759 of 1984, filed by the petitioner, that he would be reinstated into service, but was not be entitled to “salary or other emoluments” for the period from 01.10.1981 to the date of reinstatement. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim gratuity for the period referred to above. The mere fact that the said period was counted towards seniority does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim gratuity. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.24.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ