Disposed

P.Ram Reddy v. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC4 Aug 2005WP/36501/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a retired APSRTC Conductor, sought a declaration and order directing payment of Gratuity for a specific period (1972-1990) which had been denied. The Court, noting the factual complexity, dismissed the need to adjudicate merits immediately and instead directed the respondents to verify a representation regarding service continuity within three months, conside

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to verify petitioner's service records and pass appropriate orders within three months regarding Gratuity entitlement.

P.Ram Reddy Vs The Vice Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO : 36501 of 1998

¶3

Date: 4.8.2005

¶4

Between:

¶5

P.Ram Reddy S/o Balakrishna Reddy R/o H.No.12-11-1649/A, Adikmet , Hyderabad.

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

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

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO : 36501 of 1998

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying Gratuity for the period from 4-8-1972 to 22-11-1990, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the Gratuity for the said period along with interest etc.

¶14

The petitioner having been appointed as Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1962 retired from service on 31.10.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner was removed from service and that was

¶15

the subject matter of Award in I.D. No.108 of 1987, dated 29.6.1990, wherein the Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that the Gratuity for the period from 1990 to 1998 was only paid; whereas the Gratuity for the period from 4-8-1972 to 22-11-1990 was denied and no reasons were furnished for denying the Gratuity for the said period.

¶17

The respondents have not filed any counter.

¶18

Whether the petitioner is entitled to Gratuity for the period from 4-8-1972 to 22-111990 is an issue, which is based on many a factual aspects. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the representation purported to have been made by the petitioner on 9.11.1998 and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after verifying the records and if it was found that there was no gap in the petitioner’s service.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in M. RAMA RAO vs. ASSISTANT TRAFFIC MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., HYDERABAD & OTHERS () and stated that in similar circumstances, this Court held that the petitioners therein are entitled for Gratuity. The respondents may also take this judgment into consideration while considering the representation filed by the petitioner.

¶20

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

C.V. RAMULU,J

¶22

DATE: 4^th August, 2005

¶23

Pnb

P.Ram Reddy v. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ram Reddy v. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The General Manager, Vs The General Secretary, Coal Mines

Raja Pullaiah, Vs The Addl.Industrial Tribunal cum Addl.Court

Lingam Ashok Kumar, Vs The Vice Chairman and MD

B.D.Bhasker, Vs The Divisional Security Commiossioner

K. Venkat Ram Reddy Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-Iii

Trimex Industries Ltd., Vs The Industrial Tribunal I