High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in thr circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr urt may be pleased to grant interim direction to the Respondents to pay balanft retirement benefits to the petitioner, pendir-rg disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.G.SAryANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER I ir: - HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.21l1 of 2Ol9 ORDER: Petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage conductor on

18.02. 1986, regularized on 26.12.1986, promoted ln 2012, and retired on 31.08.2018 after rendering 32 years, 6 months, and 13 days of service. As per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, any service of six months or more should be treated as a full year. However, gratuity was wrongly calculated from the date of regularization, granting only 32 years of service instead of 33 years from the actual date of joining. While the petitioner received 9O% gratuity, provident fund, and other benefits, key dues such as the remaining 107o gratuity, earned leave encashment (17O days), firral month's I salary ({55,OOO), and 2013 pay-scale arrears (<1,25,OO0 + interest) rematn unpaid, allegedly pending caste certificate verification, despite petitioner submitting all required no-dues and vigilance clearance certificates. There is no provision under TSRTC regulations to withhold leave encashment. Further, the petitioner relied on the Judgment dated

14.O8.2O13, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6770 of 2013, which held that non-payment of 2 WI'No2ll1of20t9 NIll\.J retirement dues amounts to deprivation of Irroperty under Article 3O0A of the Constitution of India. N rn-payment of these benefits gravely affects the petition,:r's livelihood, particularly as TSRTC employees receive o ilv a nominal provident funcl pension. Hence, this Writ Petitir r-r

2. Heard Siri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learrred counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Srushman Reddy, le;trned Standing Counsel for TSRTC for respondents. Perused tLe record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner. rvhile making submissions on lines of the writ affidavit, requested this Court to dire<:t the respondents to pay balan< c 10(/o gratuity and differencr: of gratuity calculated for 33 y,"ars of service, Encashment lor l7O days of Earned Leav.l, l.Rs.55,OO0/- towards last rnonth salary, Rs. 1,25,0O0/- tou ards arrears of Revision of F'ay Scales, 2O 13 bond amount which carries interest at 8.75<'jh p.a., with interest at 9o/o p rr alnum from the date of superannuation till the date of f avment and to issue Medical Scheme Card.

4. Learnecl Standing Counsel for responderrts opposed the same and stated that the petitioner had a-lre: dy retired from 3 WPNo2lllof2Ol9 N IJK.J service after receiving the balance of the retirement benehts Therefore, there is no merit in filing this writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Upon careful consideration of the material on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, this Court finds that the petitioner rendered continuous service from 18.O2.1986. Accordingly, he is entitled to have his gratuity calculated from that date. As per Section 2,{ of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, any service of six months or more in a year is to be treated as a full year The respondents have erred in reckoning the petitioner's servlce only from the date of his regularization, i.e.,

26.12.1986, thereby depriving him of credit for onq full year of servlce. Further, the record reveaLs that the petitioner f ( submitted all requisite no-dues and vigilance clearance certificates prior to his retirement. The respondents' contention that caste certificate verification was pending is not a valid ground for withholding statutory retirement benefits. There is no enabling provision in the TSRTC regulations that authorizes such withholding. Moreover, the Hontrle Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2O13, has rG! + NBK..J ',V P No 21l1of 20 19 unequivocally hLeld that non-payment of retirer nent benelits amounts to deprivation of property under Artici : 30OA of the Constitution of India

6.. Accordinglv, the Writ Petition is allowed. Thrrrespondents are directed to pay the balance retirements b, :nefit s to the petitioner in a,:cordance with law within a plriod of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thi: order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if anr', shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. I.. SRINIVASA REDDY e,dbrslenr REGISTRAR /

1.. 6ECTION OFFICER i To, 1 2 3 4 5 The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transp< Bhavan, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-500624. \ \, rt porporation, Bus The Regional l\'lanager, T.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad Region, M.G.B.S. Hyderabad The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C. Kachiguda Depot, Kac One CC to SRt A.G.SATYANARAYANA RAO, Advocal One CC to SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGS n iguda, Hyderabad. : [OPUC] rrc [oPUC] Two CD Copies 6 BSR GJP Y^- HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 ORDER WP.No.2111 ot 2019 -:it: ' i,iI 2 0 5rr ilflli '.,J..,. t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I co{n/b Yr*3\ t'