THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24444 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner in the year 19 APSRTC. He was removed from service on 04.01.2002 on discip grounds. I.D.No.146 of 2002 filed by the petitioner in the Labour C Guntur was allowed by granting the relief to the effect that the petitioner be deemed to have retired from service on the date of termination 04.01.2002, and shall be extended the retirement benefits. The peti filed W.P.No.21862 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by the award. The petition was allowed on 27.07.2007 and the matter was remanded t Labour Court for fresh consideration and disposal. On such remand Labour Court passed an award, dated 11.08.2008, directing reinstatem the petitioner with attendant benefits, but without back wages. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner attaine age of supperannuation on 30.08.2005. He made a representation t respondents on 02.08.2010 with a request to pay him the differential am that became payable in view of the award, dated 11.08.2008. His griev is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Sta Counsel for the respondents. The award passed by the Labour Court in the first round was t effect that the first respondent shall be deemed to have retired on the d termination. The result would have been that the petitioner became en to be paid the terminal benefits which otherwise were not payable to The award was set aside and the matter was remanded by this Court remand, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and dir reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and atte benefits, though back wages were denied. The possibility to reinstate the petitioner did not exist, sinc attained supperannuation during the pendency of the proceed Therefore, the Corporation was under obligation to work out the no benefits in the limited context of arriving at the salary payable to petitioner as on the date on which he attained the age of supperannu and for calculation of the terminal benefits on that basis. Such an exe was not undertaken. The petitioner is out of service for the past eight y Though he was paid the terminal benefits in pursuance of the award pa by the Labour Court at first instance, consequential steps, namely, pay of differential amounts in view of the subsequent award, have t undertaken. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respon to consider the representation, dated 02.08.2010, submitted by the petit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this or There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:01.10.2010 VGB