IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 8908 of 2008 Between: S.S.Narayana S/o.Late Narasaiah R?o.3-7 Post & village:Mothkur, Nalgonda district ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot Gadwal, Mahabunagar District .....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 arranging the gratuity only for 20 yeas of service as against the completed year of service of 27 years as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of aRt.14 ,16&21 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the purport of the award made inID.No.322 of 1985 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the difference of the gratuity for the period from 2.1.1980 to 27.7.1987 along with the 18% of interest in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 02.01.1980. However, he was suspended from service on 06.12.1980 and thereafter, removed from service on 05.07.1981. On the basis of an award, dated 21.01.1987, passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.322 of 1985, the petitioner was reinstated into service. He was also promoted to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk (A.D.C.) in January, 2007. He retired from service on 30.06.2007. The respondents extended the terminal benefits to the petitioner, but not the gratuity for the period anterior to the date of reinstatement into service. The petitioner got issued a notice to the second respondent and a reply was issued on 16.04.2008 stating that the petitioner is not entitled to be paid the gratuity for the period during which he was out of service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement, continuity of service and attendant benefits, though it denied the back wages to the petitioner. Once the continuity of service and attendant benefits are extended to the petitioner, he was entitled to be treated as in continuous service without any break. The payment of gratuity does not depend upon the actual physical working of the employee. Even the notional service is liable to be treated for that purpose. In M.RAMA RAO v ASSISANT TRAFFIC MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C.[1], this Court held that once the Labour Court granted the relief of continuity of service and attendant benefits, gratuity is payable for the period during which the employee is out of service. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to extend the benefit for the entire period of service of the petitioner excluding the one, which has already been paid. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BSJ} [1] 1998(3) ALD 76