Telangana High Court
WP/26678/2005 of N. Pitchaiah, Vs The Regional Manager, APSRTC, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26678 OF 2005 DATED: 26-12-2005 Between: N.Pitchaiah . . .Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam and another . . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26678 of 2005 O R D E R: The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26678 OF 2005
DATED: 26-12-2005
Between:
N.Pitchaiah . . .Petitioner
And
The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam
and another . . . .Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26678 of 2005
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.
O R D E R:
The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in APSRTC in the year 1973. Hewas removed from service on disciplinary charges in the year 1985. Ultimately,he came to be reinstated into service in pursuance of an award passed by theLabour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.105 of 1989. He was granted the relief ofreinstatement and continuity of service, but was denied the back wages. Thepetitioner retired from service on 31-10-2005. His grievance is that he was notpaid gratuity for the period during which he was out of service, though theLabour Court granted the relief of continuity of service.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents.
Even according to the petitioner, the respondents have paid a sum ofRs.1,02,000/-. It is true that in the order passed by this Court in WP.No.1706 of2005, dated 14-03-2005, a direction was issued to the Corporation to paygratuity to an employee for the period during which he was out of service, incase the Labour Court granted the relief of continuity of service. However,there is a factual dispute as to whether the petitioner has been paid the entiregratuity payable to him or whether the period between the dates of removal andreinstatement was excluded for this purpose. The petitioner has not yetsubmitted any written representation in this regard. Equally same, therespondents did not have an occasion to examine the case of the petitionerfrom that point of view.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submita representation, narrating his grievance and the respondents, in turn, shalltake appropriate steps in the matter, within a period of four weeks from the dateof receiving the same. In case the relief claimed by the petitioner is notgranted, the respondents shall state the reasons therefor. There shall be noorder as to costs.
26[th] DECEMBER, 2005.
kvni
_________________________
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)