A.Balakistaiah, vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc
2022 Latest Caselaw 6297 Tel

      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