IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25840 of 2008 Between: K. Narayana Swamy, S/o. Late K. Aswarthappa, E.No. 94696, r/o. 1/301, Post & Mandal : Putlur, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Urvakonda, Anantapur District. 3 The Commissioner, Provident Fund Commission, Barkathpura, Hyderabad, A.P. .....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 appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus : a) declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondent in not fixing the petitioner's pay duly taking the last drawn pay of Rs. 5695/- on his reinstatement duly fixing the same in the correspondent basic pay of RPS 2005; b) declaring the action of 1st and 2nd respondents in not counting the removal period i.e. 02-7-1981 of July 1990, & 07-6-2004 to 15-4-2008 for the purpose of payment of gratuity on his retirement c) declaring the action of the respondent in not arranging the PF. amounts, pension, SRBS, C.C.S. and un-avilaed E.L. Wages ; as arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory as well as in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to re-fix the pay by taking into consideration fo the removal period basic pay in the RPS 2005 on his reinstatement into service, and arrange its consequential benefits i.e. i) arrears of pay from 16-4-2008 to 30-6-2008 ii) the reference to gratuity by counting removal period basing on the refixed pay and other amounts of P.F. SRBS, un-avalied E.L. wages and pension along with interest from due date in the interet of justice and fair play Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation on 26.4.1979. He was removed from service on the ground of cash and ticket irregularities while working in Tadipatri Depot on 2.7.1981. He raised industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ananthapur District. His dispute came to be numbered as I.D.No.199 of 1988. The order of removal came to be set aside by the Labour Court by an award dated 5.3.1990. The respondents-Corporation was directed to reinstate him into service with continuity of service but without back wages. Pursuant to the award, the respondents-Corporation reinstated him into service in the month of July, 1990. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him in the year 2004 on the ground of cash and ticket irregularities. He came to be removed from service. His departmental remedy proved to be not fruitful and hence he raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur. His dispute came to be entertained as I.D.No.109 of 2005. The Labour Court set aside the order of removal and directed the respondents-Corporation to reinstate him into service but without continuity of service and backwages. Two writ petitions came to be filled against the said award. One by the petitioner being W.P.No.13388 of 2008 and another being W.P.No.14712 of 2008 by the respondents- Corporation. Both the writ petitions came to be disposed of under a common order dated 14-7-2008. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “ This is not a case, where the Labour Court had to stretch its discretion, in the matter of granting relief, even after holding that the misconduct of the employee was proved. Once the order of removal was set aside, holding that the charge was not proved, in the normal course, the employee ought to have been restored to his original position in all respects. The Labour Court, however, granted the relief of mere reinstatement and denied the reliefs of continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. The employee joined the service of the Corporation in the year 1979. The fruits of the past service cannot be denied in the facts and circumstances of the case. The slight lack of clarity as to the finding recorded by the Labour Court can, at the most, lead to denial of attendant benefits and back wages to the employee.” The grievance of the petitioner is that the period under the two departmental proceedings has not been counted for the purpose of gratuity despite the specific directions to treat the said period as continuity of service by the Labour Court and also the common order passed by this Court. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is confining his relief with regard to treating the period of out of service covered under the two departmental proceedings for the purpose of gratuity. It is no more in dispute that in the award passed by the Labour Court, the period of out of service has been directed to be treated as continuity of service and so also by this Court by the common order referred to supra. Therefore, these two period which are spent out of duty covered by the two departmental proceedings are required to be treated for the purpose of continuity of service. This is issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in M.RAMA RAO V. ASST.TRAFFIC MANAGER, APSRTC, HYD.[1] In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat the two periods (2.7.1981 to 31.7.1990 and 7.6.2004 to 15.4.2008) covered under departmental proceedings for the purpose of gratuity. No costs. 27th February, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25840 OF 2008 27TH FEBRUARY 2009. [1] 1998(3) ALD 76