Dismissed

T.Mallesham v. Apsrtc., rep.by its Managing Director

Telangana HC7 Jul 2014WA/997/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An employee, removed from service and later reinstated as a fresh conductor, challenged the Corporation's calculation of gratuity. The reconstitution of service created a break, precluding continuous calculation based on the final retirement pay. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's order.

T.Mallesham Vs Apsrtc., rep.by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No. 997 of 2014

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition filed this writ appeal. The appellant was employed as a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1970. He was removed from service on disciplinary grounds, through order dated 21-03-1979. In the appeal preferred against the order of removal, the Appellate Authority passed an order dated 14-11-1979, setting aside the order of removal, but directing that the appellant be appointed as a fresh Conductor. Accordingly, he was appointed as a fresh conductor. On attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant retired from the service of the Corporation on 31-03-2006.

¶7

While working out the retirement benefits, the Corporation calculated the gratuity in two compartments: The first was for the period from 27-01-1970 to 21-03-1979, and the second was for the rest of the period, till the date of retirement. Both the amounts were calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn in the respective periods. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.8047 of 2009 for a direction to the respondents to calculate the gratuity for the entire period of his service, on the last pay drawn, as on the date of retirement. The learned single Judge took note of the factum of the appellant having been appointed as Conductor afresh, in the year

¶8

1979, and declined the relief. Hence, this appeal.

¶9

Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri H. Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C.

¶10

It is not in dispute that the appellant was removed from service. Though the appellate authority has set aside the order of removal, the relief was only to the effect that the appellant

¶11

be appointed as a fresh Conductor. With that, almost a semblance of break occurs in the service, and from the date of reinstatement, a fresh spell has begun. The last pay drawn would cover the period from the period of his appointment afresh, in the year 1979. In all fairness to the appellant, the Corporation paid gratuity for the first spell also, being a separate block period. The only basis for calculation of the last pay drawn was, as on the date of removal from service.

¶12

We do not find any basis to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

__________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶15

__________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J. Dt.07-07-2014

¶16

T.Mallesham v. Apsrtc., rep.by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Mallesham v. Apsrtc., rep.by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Chand Pasha, S/o. late Mohd Masoom Vs Apsrtc

M.v.Seshachary, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M.v.Seshachary, Vs The Presiding Officer

A.P.S.(C.R.I.C.Ltd) Co-Op Rural Irrigation Croporation Ltd. Vs a. Giri Prasad

Mr. J. Papaiah Vs A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Vs J. Papaiah