IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12058 of 2008 Between: S.S. Goud, S/o. Chinna Veeranna Goud R/o. Pulimamidi, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.state Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500 020. 2 A.P.state Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager,Narayanapet, Mahabubnagar District. .....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 call for the records from the respondents and iossue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring that the action of Respondent Corporation in withholding the gratuity for the period from 27.2.1980 to 16.1.1986 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of india, and consequently direct the respondent Corporation to pay the gratuity for the entire service rendered by the petitioner, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12058 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner retired from the A.P.S.R.T.C. as Deputy Superintendent (T) on 30.04.2008. While in service, he was inflicted punishment of removal from service and thereafter, was reinstated, on the basis of an award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.17 of 1985. He was not in active service between 1980 and 1986. The respondents have extended all the retirement benefits to the petitioner except gratuity for the period between 28.02.1980 and 16.01.1986, on the ground that he was not in active service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is no longer res integra. In M.Rama Rao vs. Asst. Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad[1], this Court held that wherever an employee is reinstated on the basis of an award, with continuity of service, there cannot be any break in service and gratuity is payable for the entire period. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this legal position. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay gratuity to the petitioner, for the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement, in pursuance of the award in I.D.No.17 of 1985, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 20.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12058 of 2008 Date: 20.06.2008 JSU [1] 1998(3) ALD 76