IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25781 of 2008 Between: A. Venkaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah, E- 501584, R/o. Nawab Pet, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gudur, Nellore 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent sin not paying the terminal benefits like Gratuity and other benefits for the period out of employment from 31-10-1992 to 22-3-1993 and 13-11-1995 to 5-2-2000 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and as such consequently direct the respondents herein to pay the Gratuity by counting the out of employment period from 31-10-1992 to 22-3-1993 and 13-11-1995 to 5- 2-2000 along with interest. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the terminal benefits like gratuity and other benefits for the period during which he was out of employment from 31- 10-1992 to 22-3-1993 and from 13-11-1995 to 5-2-2000 along with interest. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent A.P.State Road Transport Corporation on 3.6.1987 and he was removed from service on 31.10.1992 on the allegation of unauthorized absence and he was reinstated into service by the appellate authority vide proceedings dated 22.3.1993. Again on 13.11.1995, he was removed from service on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities. Questioning the same, he approached the Labour Court in I.D.No.122 of 1996 and by award dated 5.2.2000 the Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate him into service with continuity of service but without backwages. Thereafter, he was reinstated into service and he retired on 30.6.2003 after attaining superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not paying him the gratuity and leave encashment etc., for the periods he was out of employment earlier even though the appellate authority reinstated him into service at the first instance and the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service for the second time when he was removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was reinstated into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, he cannot be denied the retirement benefits for the period during which he was out of service and extension of the said benefit does not depend upon the actual physical service in the corporation. The learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court reported in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad [1] wherein this Court held that in a case where under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal of an employee and directed that the employee be reinstated into service with continuity of service, the management could not deny the payment of gratuity to the employee on his retirement for the period during which he was out of employment as a result of the order of removal. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that admittedly the petitioner was removed from service firstly on 31.10.1992 and was reinstated by the appellate authority vide proceedings dated 22.3.1993. While reinstating him into service, it was observed that ‘the intervening period from the date of removal to the date of reporting be treated as not on duty’. The said observation has not been challenged by the petitioner and the same has become final. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits from 31.10.1992 to 22.3.1993. However, he conceded that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity and other retrial benefits as per the Labour Court award from 13.11.1995 to 5.2.2000 during which period he was out of service since continuity of service was ordered. As rightly contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent since the petitioner was reinstated into service by the appellate authority observing that the period during which the petitioner was out of employment i.e. from 31.10.1992 to 22.3.1993 shall be treated as not on duty, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit during that period. Even according to the learned standing counsel, in view of the judgment of this Court referred to above, the petitioner is entitled for gratuity and other retrial benefits for the period from 13.11.1995 to 5.2.2000 in view of the judgment of the Labour Court, which awarded continuity of service, which became final. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed in part and the respondents are directed to extend the monetary benefits to the petitioner for the period from 13.11.1995 to 5.2.2000, within a period of eight weeks No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.19.12.2008 msv [1] 1998(3) ALD 76