IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26080 of 2008 Between: Hanmi Reddy S/o. Chenna Reddy APSRTC., Shad Nagar Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar Dist., A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager APSRTC. Mahaboobnagar Region at Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Depot Manager APSRTC. Shad Nagar Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar Dist. .....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 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 for the period between 06-03-1986 to 22-11-1986 and 14-04-1987 to 27-03-1989 and 07-04-1998 to 25-10-2002 is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and consequently direct the respondent to pay the gratuity to the petitioner by counting the casual service period and out of employment periods above said. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B .SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 26080 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The petitioner-Hanmi Reddy was appointed as casual labour on 6- 3-1986 and subsequently his services came to be regularized on 22-11- 1986. On 7-4-1998 the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner on the charge of cash and ticket irregularities and thereafter removed him from service on 13-8-1998. The petitioner filed I.D.No. 101 of 2000 questioning the order of removal. The I.D. came to be allowed modifying the punishment of removal to stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner reported duty on 25-10-2002 and retired from service on 31-8-2008. Since the respondents did not count the period from 7-4-1998 to 25-10-2002 and failed to pay the gratuity for the said period, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned standing counsel of APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner is reinstated with continuity of service, the management cannot deny the payment of gratuity to him for the period for which he is out of employment pursuant to the order of removal. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M. Rama Rao Vs. Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad[1]. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the above referred decision. Once reinstatement is ordered, the period for which he was out of employment as a result of order of removal is to be counted for the purpose of gratuity. With regard to counting of his casual service period and leave due period, he has to make an application to the respondents for counting the casual service period and leave due period for the purpose of payment of gratuity. 5. The petitioner is given liberty to make an application to the respondents for counting the casual service period and also leave due period for the purpose of gratuity. On such application being made, the respondents have to dispose keeping in view the Circular dated 16-9- 1975, issued by the office of the General Manager, MSRD, Hyderabad dated 16-9-1975. No order as to costs. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 13th February, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B .SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 26080 OF 2008 13th February, 2009. [1] 1998(3) ALD 76