THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27999 OF 2007 DATED: 29.01.2008 Between: S. Ramulu .. Petitioner And A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and another. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27999 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Office Order No.P1/693(7)/2007-NRPT, dated 01.06.2007, retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds with effect from 26.05.2007, without paying the retirement benefits and additional monetary benefits, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears, the petitioner, while working as Conductor with A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) at Narayanpet Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, retired from service on medical grounds with effect from 26.05.2007. While so, now the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid the gratuity amount in full as well as other service benefits for the period of left over service, to which he is entitled. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner was paid all the retirement benefits to which he is entitled and, since the petitioner was made to retire on medical grounds, service benefits for the period of left over service were not extended. It seems, the petitioner was denied gratuity for a period of nine years. The only ground for such denial seems to be that he was not in active service during the said period of nine years, in view of his removal from service earlier. In fact, the order, under which the petitioner was removed from service, was challenged in I.D.No.40 of 1992 and, in pursuance of the award passed in the said I.D. on 02.12.1992, directing the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Thus, in view of the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity for the said period of nine years also, during which he was out of employment, and the respondents could not have denied gratuity to the petitioner for those nine years. Insofar as the claim regarding the benefits accrued to the account of the petitioner in terms of Regulation 6A (4) of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short ‘the Regulations’) is concerned, the same were admittedly not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled for such benefits as a matter of right. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to treat the period of nine years, during which the petitioner was out of employment, as the service rendered by him, in view of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.40 of 1992, and compute the said period for the purpose of payment of gratuity etc. and also extend the benefits to which he is entitled to in terms of Regulation 6A (4) of the Regulations, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th January, 2008. IBL