THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6316 OF 2006 DATED: 25.11.2009 Between: M. Koteswara Rao … Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. By its Executive Director, MGBS, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6316 OF 2006 ORDER : The petitioner herein has retired from service of the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 30.06.2005. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 31.05.2005 wherein the petitioner’s request to take into consideration the period from 9.11.1995 to 24.5.1997 for the purpose of computing earned leave was rejected as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was removed from service on 19.8.1996 and challenging the same the petitioner filed W.P.No.28141 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17.4.1997 quashing the removal order and directing reinstatement of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, he was reinstated. However after his retirement while calculating the terminal benefits such as gratuity, encashment of earned leave and additional charge allowances the respondents refused to take into consideration the out of service period from 9.11.1995 to 24.5.1997. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by order of this Court in W.P.No.17438 of 2001 dated 18.3.2002 wherein this Court had directed the Corporation to treat the removal period as qualified service for the purpose of payment of gratuity and earned leave, calculate the amount payable to the petitioner therein and release the same within a period of 3 months. Though the Corporation preferred an Appeal (W.A.No.1125 of 2002), the same was dismissed and even the Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No.22830 of 2003), preferred before the Supreme Court, was dismissed by order dated 12.12.2003. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is entitled for the leave encashment as well as gratuity for the period during which he was out of service. The fact that the order of this Court in W.P.No.28141 of 1996 has become final is not in dispute. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has not disputed the fact that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.17438 of 2001 as upheld by the Division Bench. In the circumstances, following the above said order, the impugned order dated 31.5.2005 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for with a direction to the respondents to calculate the lave encashment as well as gratuity to which the petitioner is entitled to for the period from 9.11.1995 to 24.5.1997 and release the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. So far as the additional charge allowances claimed by the petitioner for holding the post of Assistant Traffic Manager is concerned, it is left open to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondents. If any such representation is made, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 25.11.2009 gbs