THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.814 of 2012
JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Writ Petition No.13360 of 1998, dated 12.08.2010.
2. Heard Mr. M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing
Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.), for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was appointed as a Conductor with the respondents during the year 1960, and later the appellant was promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk; while the appellant was discharging his duties, the disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings and imposed a punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 26.12.1989; thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully preferred appeal and revision, and later challenged the orders of removal before the Industrial ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_814_2012 Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-III, at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') by filing (Old) I.D.No.75 of 1990 (later re- numbered as I.D.No.390 of 1992); vide order dated 15.12.1995, the Tribunal dismissed the I.D.; aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.13360 of 1998; vide order dated 12.08.2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition; and aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the age of the appellant as on to-day is seventy-eight (78) years, and if only the service benefits of the appellant are paid, the ends of justice would be met; and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the Writ Appeal by directing the respondents to settle the service benefits for the services rendered by the appellant prior to the date of removal, such as Gratuity, accumulated amount in Provident Fund and other service benefits.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the case of the appellant would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with the rules, and if any service ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_814_2012 benefits are still not paid to the appellant, the same would be examined by the respondents and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the present Writ Appeal can be disposed of by directing the respondents to settle the service benefits of the appellant for the services rendered prior to the date of removal, if not already paid, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date : 01.12.2022 Ndr