THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26678 OF 2005 DATED: 26-12-2005 Between: N.Pitchaiah . . .Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam and another . . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26678 of 2005 O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in APSRTC in the year 1973. He was removed from service on disciplinary charges in the year 1985. Ultimately, he came to be reinstated into service in pursuance of an award passed by the Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.105 of 1989. He was granted the relief of reinstatement and continuity of service, but was denied the back wages. The petitioner retired from service on 31-10-2005. His grievance is that he was not paid gratuity for the period during which he was out of service, though the Labour Court granted the relief of continuity of service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Even according to the petitioner, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.1,02,000/-. It is true that in the order passed by this Court in WP.No.1706 of 2005, dated 14-03-2005, a direction was issued to the Corporation to pay gratuity to an employee for the period during which he was out of service, in case the Labour Court granted the relief of continuity of service. However, there is a factual dispute as to whether the petitioner has been paid the entire gratuity payable to him or whether the period between the dates of removal and reinstatement was excluded for this purpose. The petitioner has not yet submitted any written representation in this regard. Equally same, the respondents did not have an occasion to examine the case of the petitioner from that point of view. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation, narrating his grievance and the respondents, in turn, shall take appropriate steps in the matter, within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving the same. In case the relief claimed by the petitioner is not granted, the respondents shall state the reasons therefor. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 26th DECEMBER, 2005. kvni