ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 8-3-2012 Annexure-C of the Appellate Authority determining Rs. 2,12,381.00 as gratuity, has presented this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions.-- (i) The petitioner-Corporation issued an endorsement Ex. R.3 recording 16-12-1978 as the date of entry into service of the respondent-workman on the basis of orders passed by this Court in writ petition and in writ appeal although his name was found in the Badali list as on 4-2-1976, Ex. P.1, and put in total service of 22 years 10 months 17 days, out of which 10 months and 13 days was excluded as period of absence, salary without leave, suspension and other such orders and therefore, the respondent had worked for 22 years and 13 days. (ii) The respondent-workman retired on 31-3-2005, whence, was paid Rs. 1,23,646/- and an additional sum of Rs. 5,500/- totaling to Rs. 1,29,140/- reckoning Rs. 5,620/- as the last basic pay drawn by the workman and the gratuity calculated in accordance with the KSRTC Servants Gratuity Regulations. (iii) That in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the respondent-workman is entitled to Rs. 1,19,117/- by reckoning Rs. 5,620/- as the last drawn basic pay to which D.A. of Rs. 3,765/- when added, the total is Rs. 9,385 and applying the formula i.e. 15 x 22/26 would result in the said gratuity amount. (iv) The Appellate Authority without any justification reckoned the last drawn basic pay as Rs. 5,620/- to which was added D.A. of Rs. 3,990/- to arrive at Rs. 9,610/- and reckoning the period of service rendered as 22 years and 10 months determined gratuity at Rs. 2,12,381/- and after deducting the amounts paid directed payment of Rs. 83,241/- with interest at 10% P.A. 2. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent-workman submits: (i) That records relating to discharge of duties while on the Badali list in the custody of the petitioner-Corporation, which when not placed before the Controlling Authority, the period of active service eligible for determining gratuity was reckoned from 16-12-1978 to 31-3-2005. 83,241/- with interest at 10% P.A. 2. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent-workman submits: (i) That records relating to discharge of duties while on the Badali list in the custody of the petitioner-Corporation, which when not placed before the Controlling Authority, the period of active service eligible for determining gratuity was reckoned from 16-12-1978 to 31-3-2005. Learned Counsel submits that the endorsement Annexure-R3 issued by the petitioner-Corporation is inapplicable for determining continuous service under Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; (ii) it is submitted that adverse interference is to be drawn that the workman did discharge duties while on the Badli rolls, with effect from 4-2-1976, in the absence of petitioner-Corporation placing on record Part VI of the Service Register for reckoning continuous service; (iii) in the absence of relevant material to establish that as on 1-1-2000 the pay of the respondent when fixed, after merger of the D.A., was Rs. 4,465/- is also not indicating what was the percentage of D.A. allegedly merged and what was the pay scale attached to the post as on 1-1-2000, the Appellate Authority justifiably reckoned Rs. 5,620/- as the last drawn wages and added D.A. of Rs. 3,990/-; (iv) learned Counsel submits that the adding of the D.A. to the last drawn pay is in accordance with law. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order of the Appellate Authority, the question for decision making is: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Authority is just, legal and proper? 4. There can be no doubt that person enlisted in the badali list of the petitioner-Corporation is entitled, in terms of the memorandum of settlement, to be brought on time scale of pay or on probation immediately on the completion of continuous service of 180 days or 240 days, subject to availability of vacancies. Therefore, the conditions precedent to bring an employee on time scale of pay or probation is that he should have completed 180 days or 240 days of continuous service and the existence of vacancies. 5. Though by endorsement dated 22-12-2005 Ex. Therefore, the conditions precedent to bring an employee on time scale of pay or probation is that he should have completed 180 days or 240 days of continuous service and the existence of vacancies. 5. Though by endorsement dated 22-12-2005 Ex. R.3 (after third respondent retired from service) the workman was brought on probation with effect from 16-12-1978, nevertheless, no reasons are forthcoming for not reckoning the period from 4-2-1976 upto 16-12-1978, while on the badali list, but states that pursuant to a VC Order No. 1748 of 1982, dated 14-5-2982 a decision was taken to reckon the date of entry into service as 16-12-1978. Mere mentioning of the order is insufficient to establish reasons why the service of the workman during the badali period from 4-2-1976 was not reckoned for service. 6. Be that as it may, the workman was brought on probation on 16-12-1978 which means that he should have completed 180 days or 240 days of continuous service while in the Badli list from 4-2-1976. If that is so then the workman is entitled to reckon his entry into service of the petitioner from 4-2-1976 and not 16-12-1978. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that bringing the workman on probation on 16-12-1978 was pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 21378 of 2005, dated 5-10-2005, Ex. R.2 and W.P. No. 2075 of 2004, dated 16-2-2004, Ex. R.5 and W.A. No. 4997 of 1998, dated 3-8-1999 Ex. R.6. A perusal of those orders do not indicate any direction to the petitioner to bring on probation with effect from 16-12-1978, except that the workman, is entitled to, in terms of the memorandum of settlement to be brought on probation or time scale of pay. The orders in my considered opinion do not come to the aid of the Corporation, as regards the date of entry into service. 8. It is not disputed that petitioner-Corporation is required to record entries in Part VI of the service register only if the employees who are born on Badali list have completed service of 180 days or 240 days before being brought on time scale of pay or on probation. The photocopy of the service book, Ex. 8. It is not disputed that petitioner-Corporation is required to record entries in Part VI of the service register only if the employees who are born on Badali list have completed service of 180 days or 240 days before being brought on time scale of pay or on probation. The photocopy of the service book, Ex. R.2 said to be in respect of the respondent-workman does not disclose Part VI hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner-Corporation, in otherwords, it cannot but be said that the workman was in service from 4-2-1976 onwards and not 16-12-1978. 9. In the circumstances, it is impermissible to surmise, conjecture or draw an inference that respondent-workman did not work continuously during the period from 4-2-1976 while on the badali list. In this view of the matter, it cannot but be said that the Appellate Authority fell in error in reckoning the period of service as 22 years 10 months while it should be reckoned as 29 years 1 month and 27 days. 10. Petitioner-Corporation though contends that for a period of 10 months and 17 days respondent was absent, kept of duty, suspended etc. and therefore that period is to be excluded from the total years of service, is unacceptable, regard being had to the definition of the term "continuous service" under Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of orders having been passed against the workman declaring the said periods as break in service, the said period cannot be excluded from the total number of years of service. 11. It is no doubt true that the service book Ex. R.2 discloses pay of the workman was fixed as Rs. 1,845/- as on 6-12-1997 and there afterwards at Rs. 2,546 on 1-4-1998 recording as "BDA with effect from 1-1-1999", and further as Rs. 1945/- on 12-12-1999 and on 1-1-2000 pay is fixed as Rs. 4,715 (1,945 + 194.50 + 2546 + 50 = 4,935.50). According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the pay as on 12-12-1999 of the workman was Rs. 1,945/- and the DA was Rs. 2,546/-, which was merged and therefore by the time the respondent retired from service the wage paid to the respondent-workman was basic pay + D.A. Hence, it is submitted that the Appellate Authority was not justified in reckoning Rs. 1,945/- and the DA was Rs. 2,546/-, which was merged and therefore by the time the respondent retired from service the wage paid to the respondent-workman was basic pay + D.A. Hence, it is submitted that the Appellate Authority was not justified in reckoning Rs. 3,990/- as D.A. and adding it to Rs. 5,620/- the last drawn wage which was inclusive of D.A. resulting in a wrong determination of the gratuity. 12. Since the service record discloses that as on 1-1-2000 the pay of the respondent was fixed by merging D.A. to the basic pay then the question of once again merging D.A. into the last drawn wage as done by the Appellate Authority is illegal. Hence Appellate Authority was not justified in adding Rs. 3,990/- to the last drawn wage i.e. Rs. 5,620/- of the respondent-workman to arrive at Rs. 9,610/- and reckoning 22 years and 11 months as the total years of service to determine gratuity as Rs. 2,12,381/-. 13. Although workman has not challenged the finding over the total years of service determined by the Controlling Authority, nevertheless in order to do justice to the workman who has knocked at the doors of the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the mistake committed by the authorities who are not legally trained cannot be taken advantage of to the detriment of the workman who is legally entitled to a determination of gratuity under the Act. The adjudication of claims of gratuity being a quasi-judicial proceeding ends of justice would be met by reckoning the total period of service rendered by the respondent-workman as 29 years and the last drawn wage as Rs. 5,620/-. If so done gratuity payable to the workman is Rs. 1,62,980/- and deducting Rs. 1,29,140/- since paid, is entitled to Rs. 33,840/- with interest at 10% p.a. from 1-5-2005. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The order of the Appellate Authority is quashed. The petitioner-Corporation is directed to pay Rs. 33,840/- with interest at 10% per annum from 1-5-2005 upto the date of payment which the Controlling Authority is directed to disburse from out of the amount in deposit and the excess if any be refunded to the Corporation. Petition Partly Allowed.