IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14733 of 2008 Between: M. Somaiah S/o. Late Buchi Ramulu R/o. Road No.7, Srinivasa Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Personnel Officer-II, Office of the V.C. & M.D., APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not arranging the gratuity for the out of service period i.e., from 29.11.1975 to 27.11.1990 as illegal, unjust, capricious, in violation of Art. 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the purport of the award made in I.D.No. 502 of 1989 as well as order made in W.P.No. 19718 of 2000 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity for the out of service period from 29.11.1975 to 27.11.1990 in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner retired from service of the APSRTC, as TI-II, on 30.06.2008. He was extended all the retirement benefits, but not the gratuity for the period between 29.11.1975 and 27.11.1990. The petitioner contends that though he was not in actual service during that period, he is deemed to be in service, in view of the directions issued by the Labour Court in I.D.No.502 of 1989, as to continuity of service. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad[1]. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In its award in I.D.No.502 of 1989, the Labour Court, Godavarikhani had set aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner and directed his reinstatement, without any attendant benefits, but with continuity of service. The direction as to continuity of service enables the petitioner to count the period during which he was out of active service. Under identical circumstances, this Court, in M.Rama Rao’s case (supra), held that an employee is entitled for gratuity for the period during which he was out of service, in case the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the gratuity to the petitioner for the period between 29.11.1975 and 27.11.1990. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:10.07.2008 GJ [1] 1998 LLR 0 725