ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Rathi, holding brief of Sri R. D. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the orders dated August 16, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated April 30, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity act, 1972. The sole point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is admitted case of the parties that the Payment of Gratuity Act has been amended by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1984. Section 6 of the Amending Act specially provides as under: "6. Validation.- The amendments made in the Principal Act by Section 3 and Section 4 shall be deemed to have been made with effect from February 11, 1981 and accordingly any action or thing taken or done or purporting to have been taken, or done under the Principal Act on or after the said date and before the commencement of this Act, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other Authority, be deemed to be and to have always been, for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if the said amendments had been in force at all material times. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person, before the commencement of this Act, shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been made punishable if this Act had not come into force. " ( 3 ) THE Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have rejected the case of the petitioner solely on the ground that since the petitioner admittedly has retired on February 25, 1981 whereas Amendment Act came into force in February, 1984. Therefore, the ceiling of Rs. 1000/- cannot be made applicable for the purposes of calculation of Gratuity so far as the petitioner is concerned. The order of the Prescribed Authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority as stated above. Therefore, the ceiling of Rs. 1000/- cannot be made applicable for the purposes of calculation of Gratuity so far as the petitioner is concerned. The order of the Prescribed Authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority as stated above. ( 4 ) IN my opinion, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have committed an error apparent on the face of record as they have not taken into consideration the provisions of the Act which inter alia provides that amendment made in the Principal Act by Sections 3 and 4 shall be deemed to have been made with effect from February 11, 1981 and accordingly any action or thing taken or done or purporting to have been taken or done under the Principal Act on or after the said date and before the Commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or authority, be deemed to be, and to have always been, for all purposes as validly and effectively taken or done as if the said amendments had been in force at all material times. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, since admittedly, the petitioner has retired after February 11, 1981, the view taken by the authorities below deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authorities to decide the same in the light of the observations made above within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. ( 6 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated august 16, 1995 and April 30, 1997 passed by the respondents No. 2 and 1 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authorities to decide the same in the light of the observations made above within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. .