D.M. Reddy v. Vice Chairman & Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent-Corporation in not taking period from 19.12.66 to 3.5.72 for the purpose of gratuity and other terminal benefits is illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity amount and other benefits payable to the petitioner duly taking into service from 19.12.66 to 26.2.99 together with interest and pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
The only issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the period from 19.12.1966 to 3.5.1972 can be reckoned for the purpose of gratuity to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, during the above said period, he was out of employment, since he was removed from service. Thereafter in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.60 of 1965 dated 18.1.1972, he was reinstated into service. A bare look at the award would indicate that the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and with continuity of service. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for gratuity from 19.12.1966 to 3.5.1972. Denial of gratuity for the said period is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider for reckoning the said period i.e from 19.12.1966 to
3.5.1972 for the purpose of payment of gratuity and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Date: 25.4.2008 DA ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14364 of 1999
25.4.2008
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.