IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12695 of 2009 Between: G. Jeeva Ratnam S/o. Ramaiah R/o. Kabadipalem, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC. Rep. by Vice Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager APSRTC. Prakasam Region, Prakasam Dist. 3 The Depot Manager APSRTC. Ongole, Prakasam Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay the balance gratuity amount (from the date of suspension 15-2-1991 to date of reinstatement 24-7-2002) to the Petitioner by counting the continuity of service granted by Hon'ble Labour Court in I.D.No. 206 of 1998 dated 28-9-2001 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice as otherwise the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12695 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is working as Conductor with the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. It is not in dispute that he was placed under suspension pending enquiry in the year 1991 and subsequently, by order dated 23.03.1992, he was removed from service after conducting due enquiry. However, I.D.No.206 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal was allowed by order dated 28.09.2001 thereby setting aside the order of removal dated 23.03.1992 and directing the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated and he had retired from service on 30.11.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner claims that in view of the award passed by the labour Court in I.D.No.206 of 1998, he is entitled for the retirement benefits taking into consideration the service from the date of removal till reinstatement. However, the Corporation had erroneously withheld the said amounts in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is field. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, relied upon a decision of this Court in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Central Bus Station, Hyderabad and another[1] and submitted that having regard to the ratio laid down in the said decision, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be justified. The petitioner therein was also similarly situated and this Court, after hearing both the parties, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Corporation to compute the gratuity payable to the petitioner therein taking into consideration out of employment period into account and after so computing to pay the balance of gratuity to the petitioner therein. Since admittedly, the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above order, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to compute the gratuity and other benefits payable to the petitioner taking into consideration the service of the petitioner from 04.02.1991 till his reinstatement and pay the amounts within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 07-08-2009 KLP [1] 1998(2)ALT 534