The present petition is filed seeking to issue of writ of

certiorari or direction to quash the order dated 17.02.2016

(Annexure-H) passed by second respondent and also the

order dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure-K) passed by the first

respondent.

The third respondent was appointed as Badali

Conductor in terms of memo dated 17.08.1981 and he

reported to the duty on 25.08.1981. His name was included

in the Badali list. The third respondent was removed from

services with effect from 31.05.1982. Though a request was

made to the third respondent seeking reinstatement, same

came to be rejected by an endorsement dated 29.10.1984.

Third

respondent

has

made

yet

another

representation on 14.11.1986 seeking reinstatement which

3

was also rejected by order dated 21.01.1987. Thereafter, the

third respondent was reinstated pursuant to an order passed

by the Apex Court in the case of S.Govindaraju v. Karnataka

State Road Transport Corporation [AIR 1986 SC 1680] and

he was placed on probation with effect from 27.04.1988. The

third respondent stated to have retired from the services on

30.06.2013.

4.

Based on the duration of services rendered by the

third respondent, the petitioner have paid the gratuity from

27.04.1988 till the date of retirement on 30.06.2013

aggregating in a sum of Rs.4,69,610/-. Upon the application

filed by the third respondent before the second respondent

that he has rendered service for a period of 32 years, the

petitioner was called upon by the second respondent. The

witnesses were examined and the documents were marked.

5.

However

the

second

respondent

without

considering the material evidence produced by the petitioner,

by order dated 17.02.2016 assessed and determined the

gratuity payable to the third respondent at Rs.5,94,010/-,

having taking into consideration the amount in a sum of

4

Rs.4,69,610/- already paid, directed the petitioner to pay the

balance amount of Rs.1,24,400/- with interest at 10% per

annum from 15.12.2014. Being aggrieved by the said order,

the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the first

respondent. Considering the grounds of the appeal, the first

respondent, however dismissed the said appeal by its order

dated 17.10.2017. These two orders are challenged.

6.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

learned AGA for the first and second respondents. The third

respondent

though

served

has

remained

absent

and

unrepresented.

7.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner taking to the

documents enclosed to the petition submits that admittedly,

the third respondent was appointed and his name was

included in the Badali list on 25.08.1981. He was removed

from the services on 31.05.1982. He was reinstated only on

27.04.1988. Thus the third respondent was out of service

between the period 31.05.1982 and 27.04.1988. This aspect

of the matter was suppressed by the third respondent and

5

was not brought to the notice of the first and second

respondents when the matter was being considered by them.

8.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

there is an element of suppression on the part of the third

respondent who having approached seeking determination of

gratuity ought to have disclosed these aspects of the matter,

notwithstanding, the petitioner is not able to produce the

same.

9.

Perusal of the aforesaid documents reveal that

the third respondent was not in service between 31.05.1982

to 27.04.1988. For the reasons best known, these aspects of

the matter was not made known to the first and second

respondents when the matter was being considered. If that

was brought to the notice of the first and second

respondents, the order would have been otherwise.

10.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the

considered view that it is just and proper that an opportunity

be afforded to the petitioner to produce these documents and

6

the second respondent after considering the same pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law.

11.

In view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The

order dated 17.