Telangana High Court
WP/22098/2007 of T.R.Reddy, Vs APSRTC represented byits Managing Director, on 28 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22098 of 2007 DATED: 28.12.2007 Between: T.R.Reddy. .. Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22098 of 2007 ORDER: This
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION No.22098 of 2007
DATED: 28.12.2007
Between:
T.R.Reddy. .. Petitioner
And
APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director,Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION No.22098 of 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in not fixing the petitioner’s pay in theRevised Pay Scale of 2005, which was given effect from 01.04.2005,and not paying the arrears as well the gratuity for the period of hisremoval from service i.e., from 21.01.1975 to 04.08.1991 as arbitary,illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of Indiaand contrary to the award passed by the Additional Labour Court-cum-Additional Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in ID.No.125 of 1980.
2. It appears, the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation,retired from service as TI-III/DC of the respondents’ Corporation on31.01.2007. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that when he wasremoved from service earlier, he raised a dispute before the AdditionalLabour Court-cum-Additional Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad inID.No.125 of 1980, wherein an award was passed in his favour on29.09.1980 setting aside the order, dated 27.10.1975, passed by theCorporation removing the petitioner from service, and directing theCorporation to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith withcontinuity of service, with full backwages and all other attendantbenefits, till he was allowed to duty. Aggrieved by the same, theCorporation has filed WP.No.2727 of 1981 and the same, along withW.P.Nos.2708 of 1981 and batch, was dismissed on 01.11.1986.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the award passed by the Labour Court in ID.No.125 of 1980, the petitioneris entitled to draw the retirement benefits even for the period he wasout of employment i.e., from 21.01.1975 to 04.08.1981. But, themanagement has not considered the same at the time of payment ofretirement benefits to the petitioner.
4. I am of the opinion that in view of the award passed by theLabour Court in ID.No.125 of 1980 and in view of the dismissal of thewrit petition No.2727 of 1981 filed by the management, the petitioner isentitled for retirement benefits even for the period he was placed out ofemployment i.e., from 21.01.1975 to 04.08.1981 by treating the sameas continuous service.
5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the caseof the petitioner for fixing his pay in the Revised Pay Scale of 2005, if itis not extended to him, and further to consider the period he was out ofservice i.e., from 21.01.1975 to 04.08.1981 as continuous service andextend the retirement benefits including gratuity etc. for the said periodalso, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the sameto the petitioner.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as tocosts.
28[th] December, 2007v v
____________________
JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU