Allowed

P.Somanadham v. MD Apsrtc Hyd and 2 Others

Telangana HC10 Nov 2004WP/19455/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

a petition by a retired depot clerk of APSRTC was allowed to direct the respondents to treat his removal period as qualified service for calculation of gratuity and earned leave, and to release the calculated amount within three months. (neither existing document nor legal advice)

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to treat removal period as qualified service for gratuity and earned leave calculation, and release the amount within three months.

P.Somanadham Vs MD Apsrtc Hyd and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 19455 of 2001

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.Somanadham s/o Ramalaxmaiah,aged 60 years, E.31507,Depot Clerk (Rtd), APSRTC, Hayathanagar Depot, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1.The Management of APSRTC, rep., by Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

2.The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot, Hyderabad.

¶13

3.The Depot Maqnager, APSRTC,Hayathnagar Depot, Ranga Reddy

¶14

District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to pay the balance gratuity amount of Rs.72,095/treating the period from 16-12-1967 to 5-10-1985 as on duty as per the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.38 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and also direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefit of encashment for the period from 27-12-1973 to 6-10-1985.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr. VTM Prasad,Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the balance gratuity amount of Rs.72,095/- treating the period from 16-12-1967 to 5-101985 as ‘on duty’, as per the award in I.D No.38 of 1981 on the file of Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and also directing the respondents to pay the terminal benefits for the period from 27-12-1973 to 06-101985.

¶22

The petitioner raised Industrial Dispute No.38 of 1981, aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent in terminating him from services. The Labour Court, Hyderabad, by an Award dated 15-10-1984, set aside the order of the 2^nd respondent and directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and with all attendant benefits. It is also held that the petitioner is entitled to his full back wages. It is stated that for the said period, during which he was out of service, the gratuity amount was not calculated and the terminal benefits till the date of reinstatement was also not calculated.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contentions raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in W.P No.17438 of 2001 and the same was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1125 of 2002 dated 22-08-2003.

¶24

I have perused the Judgment of this Court in W.PNo.17438 of 2001, wherein this Court directed the respondents to treat the removal period of the petitioner therein as qualified service for the purpose of payment of Gratuity and also Earned Leave, calculate the amount payable to the petitioner and release the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶25

Following the said Judgment, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent-Corporation to treat the removal period of the petitioner as qualified service for the purpose of payment of Gratuity and Earned Leave and calculate the amount payable to the petitioner and release the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

V.ESWARAIAH

10-11-2004

Note:

Issue CC by One week. (B/o) rkk

¶31

The Rule nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶32

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Wednesday the tenth day of November Two thousand and four.

¶33

¶34

1.The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶35

2.The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot, Hyderabad.

¶36

3.The Depot Maqnager, APSRTC,Hayathnagar Depot, Ranga Reddy District.

¶37

4. Two CD copies.

P.Somanadham v. MD Apsrtc Hyd and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Somanadham v. MD Apsrtc Hyd and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miriyala Hari Babu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sunka Thrimurthy, Vs The Asst.Engineer (Electircial), Substation

Jigesh Thampan Vs Marine Products Exports Development Authority

B.Ramesh Vs The a.P.State Housing Corp. Ltd.

S.Upendra, Vs The Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages

T.V.R. Sastry, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director