f' APHC010880882018 « IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESFT AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAP^ WRIT PETITION NO: 42669 OF 2018 . Between: * Smt Adusumalli Aruna, aged about 55 years, W/o Late Jagachandrudu Marlapadu village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ...Petitioner. AND 1. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Giddalur Depot, Prakasam dist. 2. The Regional Manger, APSRTC, Ongole Region, Prakasam dist. 3. The Asst Commissioner of Labour, Authority under payment of Gratuity Act Kandukur, Prakasam Dist. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issued a Writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the Order in Case NO, PG 1 of 2016, dated, 27/6/2018 the file of 3'^'^ respondent in dismissing the claim of the petitioner for payment of Gratuity and quash the same after calling the records on the file of 3 respondent and further direct the 1®* and 2'''^ respondents to pay the gratuity to the petitioner with 18% interest from the date of retirement ie 23-2-2015 to till payment of Gratuity.,- on rd f I \A NO: 1 OF 2018-^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be| pleased to direct the 2"^^ respondent to pay gratuity to the petitioner. . i Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU, SCForAPSRTQ Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following order: I j \ i I i I i i ! ! 1 APHC010880882018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 42669/2018 Between: 1.SMT ADUSUMALLI ARUNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/0 LATE JAGACHANDRUDU, MARLAPADU VILLAGE, TANGUTUR MANUAL, PRAKASAM DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, GIDDALUR DEPOT, PRAKASAM DIST. 2,THE REGIONAL MANGER, APSRTC, ONGOLE REGION, PRAKASAM DIST. 3.THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, KANDUKUR, PRAKASAM DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issued a Writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the Order in Case NO, PG 1 of 2016, dated, 27/6/2018 on the file of 3rd respondent in dismissing the claim of the petitioner for payment of Gratuity and quash the same after calling the records on the file of 3rd respondent and further direct the 1®* and 2' respondents to pay the gratuity to the petitioner with ISpercent interest from the date of retirement ie 23-2-2015 to till payment of Gratuity and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PGOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC 2.GPFOR LABOUR (AP) nd 3.. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the Order in Case No. PG 01 of 2016 dated 27.06.2018 on the file of 3rd respondent in dismissing the claim of the petitioner for payment of Gratuity and quash the same after calling the records on the file of 3'^^ respondent and further direct the and 2"'^ respondents to pay the gratuity to the petitioner with 18% interest from the date of retirement i.e. 23.02.2015 to till payment of Gratuity and pass” 2. Heard Sri. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2, and learned AGP for Labour for the 3^^ Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Driver on daily wage basis in APSRTC 10.05.1995 and his services were decasualized and appointed as Driver Gr-ll w.e.f. 01.09.1996. Later, on 26.04.2010, he was removed from service after he was found attending duties in intoxicated condition. Subsequently, consideration of his review petition, he was appointed as a fresh driver w.e.f. I 08.02.2013. On 04.02.2015, he was retired from service on medical grounds while working as a Driver and he died on 04.06.2015 due to ill-health. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent-corporation I did not choose to pay gratuity amount of the deceased petitioner, despite of numerous requests made by the petitioner. The petitioner s on ; on I husband of the ' 3 raised dispute before the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act i.e. 3''^ respondent vide PG No. 01 of 2016. The 3"'^ respondent dismissed the claim of the petitioner by order dated 27.06.2018 on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was removed from service and he did not put up mandatory 5 years of service before retirement, from the date of his fresh appointment i.e. 08.02.2013, which is not correct. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC would submit that the husband of the petitioner was removed from service for consuming alcohol while on duty. The husband of the petitioner was reinstated into service as a fresh driver in the year 2013 and he retired on medical grounds on 04.02.2015. The husband of the petitioner did not complete 5 years of mandatory service stipulated under Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, no gratuity amount is payable to his spouse i.e. petitioner herein and the other benefits such as PF, SBT, SRBS, Settlement Salary Bill and leave salary werepaid to the petitioner. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of material placed 6. on record, the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Driver in the respondent corporation in the year 1995 and he worked as driver till his removal in the year 2010. By the time of his removal in 2010, he has about 15 years of service. Subsequently, he was reinstated into service as driver afresh in the year 2013 and he retired from service in the year 2015 on medical grounds. It is the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that the husband 4 of the petitioner is removed from the service and he was reinstated as fresh driver and thereafter, he did not have mandatory service of 5 years stipulated under Sec.4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is apposite to refer relevant provisions from Sec. 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: 4. Payment of gratuity.— (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered \ continuous service for not less than five years — (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident disease: as or Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employe,r shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; or The case of the respondent-corporation falls to ground when is it the light of the legal provisions referred above. The husband of the petitioner served for 15 years before he was removed and 2 years after his reinstatement as a fresh driver, before he was retired on medical grounds 04.02.2015. Since the husband of the petitioner retired on medical grounds, he 7. seen in on 5 ^<5 is entitled to gratuity by virtue of proviso under Sec. 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is also not the case of the respondent-corporat ion that husband of the petitioner caused any loss or damage to the corporation when he attended duties while being intoxicated. In such a case, the respondent- corporation cannot forfeit any amount of gratuity that is payable to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the finding of the 3'"^ respondent that the husband of the petitioner did not complete 5 years mandatory service prior to his retirement is not correct. 7. Further, there is delay of more than 10 years in paying gratuity of the petitioner’s husband, by the respondent authorities. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to award 9% p.a. interest on the gratuity amount from the date of the retirement of petitioner’s husband from his service i.e. 04.02.2015. The respondents are directed to disburse the same to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With these observations, the present Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the 3"'^ respondent in PG No. 01 of 2016, dated 27.06.2018 is set aside. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Th ‘he Hon’ble Sri Th/r?ria« nf Justice on this Monday, The Twenty Third day of June, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. ^ Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /er SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Giddalur Depot, Prakasam dist. 2. The Regional Manger, APSRTC, Ongole Region, Prakasam dist. 3. The Asst Commissioner of Labour, Authority under payment of Gratuity Act Kandukur, Prakasam Dist. 4. One CC to Sri P Govinda Rajulu, Advocate [OPUC] ''' 5. One CC to Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, SC for APSRTC [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] . 7. Two CD Copies Cnr h HIGH COURT DATED:23/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 42669 OF 2018 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS