Judgment : The question posed in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, an Extra Departmental Agent (in short “EDA”) under the senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kovilpatti, first respondent herein, is eligible for gratuity under the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act. .2. The request of the petitioner for gratuity has been turned down by the Appellate Authority and the Regional Labour Commissioner, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, the second respondent here in Gratuity Appeal No. 1 of 2001, dated 5. 2001. The said order is put to challenge in this writ petition. He has also prayed for a direction to the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 14,910/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten Only) with interest from the date of his superannuation. .3. Facts leading to this writ petition are follows: .The petitioner was employed as EDA packer under the first respondent from 111. 1953 and continued to work in the same capacity, till the date of his retirement, i.e., on 19. 1994. He rendered 41 years of continuous service and was paid Rs.34/- per day. The second respondent paid Rs.6,000/- as an exgratia payment for the services rendered by him. The petitioner was further informed that he was not entitled for any other amount towards gratuity. 4. According to the petitioner, the provisions of the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are applicable to his case and that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.24,400/- gratuity. As there was a shortage in payment of gratuity, he filed a petition before the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, claiming the balance amount of Rs.14,400/- under Section 7(4) of the Act. In the said petition, the first respondent, though admitted the employment of the petitioner, inter alia contended that Payment of gratuity Act is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. He has further contended that the respondent-establishment was governed by P&T Extra Departmental Agents governed (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, (now known as Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964) and that the petitioner is not a workman under the act. 5. Rejecting the contentions of the first respondent, the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, by his order, dated 11. 2000, held that the petitioner is an employee under the Act and entitled to gratuity as provided therein. 5. Rejecting the contentions of the first respondent, the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, by his order, dated 11. 2000, held that the petitioner is an employee under the Act and entitled to gratuity as provided therein. Consequently, a direction was issued to the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.14,910/- being the balance amount of gratuity to be paid to the petitioner with 10% simple interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent has preferred an appeal before the second respondent in Gratuity Appeal No.1 of 2001. The appellate authority, by order, dated 5. 2001, has set aside the order of the controlling Authority holding that it is erroneous and without jurisdiction. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. .6. The senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Kovilpatti, first respondent herein, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that when the petitioner was employed as EDA packer in postal department form 211. 1953, his appointment was governed by the P&T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. He was discharged from service on 13.09.1994 attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 65 years. At the time of retirement, he was paid an ex gratia gratuity of Rs.6,000/- sanctioned by the Postmaster General, Southern Region on 5. 1995. He submitted that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act are not applicable to employees, like the petitioner and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Referring to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, Mr. S, Anbazhagan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that postal department is an establishment and therefore, the appellate authority has failed to substantiate as to how EDA employees, engaged in postal department are different from other employees. According to him, when Section 2(e) of the Act specifically exempts only those, who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or Rules provided for payment of gratuity, EDA staff would come within, the ambit of, “employee” in postal establishment and therefore, the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to them. 8. Placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sr. Supdt. of post Offices v. Smt. Sham Dulari 2007 (2) SLJ 274 (P&H), and the orders dated 12. 8. Placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sr. Supdt. of post Offices v. Smt. Sham Dulari 2007 (2) SLJ 274 (P&H), and the orders dated 12. 1997 passed by the Supreme Court, dismissing the SLP filed by the department, against the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is no longer open to the first respondent to contend that payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable to ED Staff. .9. Referring to Section 5(2) of the payment of Gratuity Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the appropriate Government may, by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any employee or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway, company or shop to which the Act applied from the operation of the provisions of the Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, such employee or class or employees are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act, the provisions of the said Act are applicable to ED Staffs. 10. According to him, as per the Director General’s Instructions, an ED agent is eligible for gratuity, at the rate of half month’s basic allowances as drawn by him, immediately before the termination of service for each completed years of service, subject to a maximum of Rs.6,000/- or 16 ½ month’s basic allowance last drawn, whichever is less. But, the benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is much more and therefore, if the appropriate government has not exempted the employee or class of employee from the operation of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, then it is open to the employee to invoke the provisions of Act, which would be more beneficial to him than the gratuity payable under the Director General’s Instructions. In support of above contention, he relied on a decision in E.I.D. Parry (I) Limited v. G. Onkar Murthy AIR 2001 SC 1407 : (2001) 4 SCC 68 : 2001-I-LLJ-1417. 11. In support of above contention, he relied on a decision in E.I.D. Parry (I) Limited v. G. Onkar Murthy AIR 2001 SC 1407 : (2001) 4 SCC 68 : 2001-I-LLJ-1417. 11. Taking this Court through the order of the appellate authority, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observations of the appellate authority that there are many EDA’s, like that of the petitioner, who have not preferred any claim for gratuity and that it is an indicator of the fact that this class of employees are not entitled for the benefit provided under the Act, are fundamentally erroneous. Accordingly to him, the mere fact that others have not claimed the benefit provided under the statue, cannot be a valid reason for rejecting the legitimate claim of the petitioner. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the findings of the appellate authority that the petitioner cannot be brought under the definition of an “employee” under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, is without any basis and therefore, for the above said reasons, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and consequently, a direction may be issued to the first respondent to pay gratuity to the petitioner with interest from the date of his attaining the age of superannuation. .13. Per contra, Mr. Dakshinamoorthy, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that since the petitioner was governed by P&T Extra Departmental agents (Conduct and service) Rules, 1964, as per the terms and conditions of his appointment, he was entitled to only for Rs. 6,000/- as an ex gratia gratuity, vide instructions, contained in Director General Posts letter No.40-29/87-PE II, dated 1. 1993. He further submitted that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as ED Agents form a separate class of employees, different from other departmental employees of the postal department and the appointment of ED Agents is purely contractual in nature. By terms and conditions of their appointment, the payment of ex gratia gratuity on their retirement at the age of 65 years is regulated by the provisions of the above rules and instructions issued from time-to-time. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in department of posts, there are nearly 3.5 lakhs EDA (part-time employees), whose work hours do not exceed 3 to 5 hours. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in department of posts, there are nearly 3.5 lakhs EDA (part-time employees), whose work hours do not exceed 3 to 5 hours. The other departmental employees are governed by CCS(Pension) Rules and ED employees are governed by EDAs (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 and are paid only a consolidated monthly allowance and not salary. The EDAs (Conduct and Service) Rules prescribe an ex gratia gratuity to be paid to these agents and therefore, it is inconceivable that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, can be stretched to make applicable to the petitioner. 15. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the benefits accruable under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be compared to the provisions under the rules or instructions issued from time to time. He further submitted that the appellate authority has properly adjudicated the claim of the petitioner, with reference to the provisions of both EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules and Payment of Gratuity Act and rightly, held that the Act is not applicable to ED employees. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 17. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is an Act to provide for a scheme for Payment of Gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company, every shop or establishment of the matter connected therewith. .18. The object of the Act as stated in Administrator, Shri.Jagannath Temple, Puri v. Jagannath Padhi (1992) Lab IC 1621, is as follows: .“Gratuity”, as observed by the Supreme Court in etymological sense, means gift, especially for services rendered in return favours received. It is well settled that long service carries with it an expectation of an appreciation from the employer and a gracious financial assistance to tide over post-retrial difficulties.” 119. As regards interpretation of the legislation, Courts have consistently held that the provisions have to be construed liberally to/benefit as many persons as possible. Extract of few decisions would be useful before dealing with the fact of the case. .20. As regards interpretation of the legislation, Courts have consistently held that the provisions have to be construed liberally to/benefit as many persons as possible. Extract of few decisions would be useful before dealing with the fact of the case. .20. In Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd., v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1984 SC 1842: (1984) 4 SCC 356 : 1984-II-LLJ-464, at Paragraph 10, the Supreme Court, held that, .“In construing a social welfare legislation the Court should adopt a beneficent rule of construction, and, if a Section is capable of two constructions, that construction should be preferred which fulfils the policy of the Act, and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed. When, however, the language is plain and unambiguous the Court must give effect to it whatever may be the consequence, for, in that case, the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature…….” .21. In McNeil & Magor Ltd., v. Jogendra Lai Malakar 1979 (39) FLR 349, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that, .“It should be noted in this connection that in the back – ground of welfare State this particular legislation has been enacted to do social justice and, in our view, it should be construed liberally to extend the benefit granted by it to as many persons as possible.” 122. In B.N. Sarda Pvt. Ltd. V. Kisan K. Borade, 1981-I-LLJ-190, the Bombay High Court, held that at p. 192 of LLJ: .23. Again a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Premlata Digambar Rao Deo v. Principal, St. Philomikne’s Convent High School, Nashik Road, 1997-II-LLJ-1050, held that at p.1052 of LLJ:s .“5. ……the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a piece of social welfare legislation. It is intended to give benefit to employees working in establishments. Thus the provisions of the Act are required to be construed liberally. They should be so construed that the beneficial intention of the legislature is not frustrated by a strict or narrow interpretation and the benefit of the Act reaches the maximum possible persons….” .24. It is intended to give benefit to employees working in establishments. Thus the provisions of the Act are required to be construed liberally. They should be so construed that the beneficial intention of the legislature is not frustrated by a strict or narrow interpretation and the benefit of the Act reaches the maximum possible persons….” .24. It is also well settled in Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. V. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta, 1982-II-LLJ-324, that at p.328 of LLJ: .“…….It also appears to me that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation intended to give benefits of the Act should be construed liberally in a way so that the beneficial intention is not frustrated by any strict and narrow interpretation but the benefit under the Act reaches the maximum possible employees……” 125. “Employee” as defined under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway, company or shop, to do any skilled, semiskilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, (and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds as post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. 126. Section 5 deals with the power of the appropriate government from exempting any employee or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, etc., and the said Section is extracted hereunder: “…The gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation and, therefore, liberal construction, must be given to the provisions in such legislation…..” “5. Power to exempt:- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway, company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway, company or shop are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. .(2) The appropriate Government may, by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any employee or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway, company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if, in opinion of the appropriate Government, such employee or class of employee are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits nor less favourable that the benefits conferred under this Act. .(3) A notification issued under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) may be issued retrospectively from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, but no such notification shall be issued so as to prejudicially affect the interest of any person.” 27. As per Section 14, the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. 28. The Director General’s Instructions on payment of gratuity to Ed agents, working in Posts and Telegraphic Department on termination of his service, are as follows: “(1) Payment of ex gratia gratuity. The question of grant of some kind of purely ex gratia monetary grant to Ed agents working in the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department on termination of their services has been under consideration for a long time. It has been decided as follows: 1. ED Agents as defined in P&T Extra-Departmental Agents(Conduct and service) Rules, 1964, whose services are terminated otherwise than(i) for unsatisfactory work or (ii) as a measure of disciplinary action or (iii) in consequence of their being appointed in a regular post under the P&T Department, may be sanctioned monetary grants termed as ‘Gratuity’, provided that they have put in not less than ten years of continuous satisfactory service as ED Agents.) 2. “Continuous Service” for the purpose of this order shall mean only such continuous service rendered in any capacity as an ED Agent. 3. “Continuous Service” for the purpose of this order shall mean only such continuous service rendered in any capacity as an ED Agent. 3. In determining the period of continuous service, periods where an ED agent himself does not personally attend to the duties assigned to him shall be treated as breaks in service unless such period is of a duration of 90 days or less and the absence from his duties is authorized by the written order of the appointing authority. 4. Unauthorized absence or authorized absence in excess of 90 days shall constitute a break which will have the effect of forfeiting all past service for the grant of gratuity. 5. An ED Agent, who becomes eligible for the grant of gratuity as indicated above, may be granted gratuity at the rate of half month’s basic allowances as drawn by him immediately before the termination of service for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of Rs. 6,000 or 16 ½ month’s basic allowance last drawn, which ever is less. 6. Gratuity admissible in accordance with the above conditions shall be purely ex gratia. 7. It has been decided to delegate powers to Heads of circles to sanction ex gratia gratuity to EDAs and also to condone the authorized absence beyond 90 days up to maximum period of 180 days at a single stretch subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down for the purpose. 8. The cases of EDAs for granting ex gratia gratuity and also condonation of break in service up to 30 day’s duration in an unauthorized manner or authorized leave no exceeding 180 days at a stretch will be settled by the committee constituted in the Circle Officer for the purpose in the manner prescribed. 9. Cases not covered by these orders will continue to be refereed to the Directorate.” 29. The ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kameshwar Parshad (1997) 11 SCC 650 , at Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Judgment, are as follows: 3. The Extra Departmental Agents are government servants holding a civil post and are entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution (See: Supdt. Of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma). They are governed by separate set of rules, viz., the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Rules”). The Extra Departmental Agents are government servants holding a civil post and are entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution (See: Supdt. Of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma). They are governed by separate set of rules, viz., the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Rules”). The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to this category of employees in view of the notification dated 21. 1957 issued by the government of India under Rule 3(3) of the said Rules. 4. In Rule 4 of the Rules it is provided that the employees shall not be entitled to any persisting. Rule 5 relates to leave. Rule 6 deals with the termination of Services. Rule 17 prescribes nature of penalties that can be imposed. Rule 8 prescribes the procedure for imposing a penalty. Rule 8-A specifies the cases in which the provisions of Rule 8 would not be applicable.” 30. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma and Another AIR 1999 SC 293 : (1998) 7 SCC 221 : 1998-II-LLJ-625, the Supreme Court considered the question whether an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi was entitled to payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, when the Corporation itself had adopted the provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 which provide both for payment of pension as well as gratuity. Rejecting the argument of the Corporation that when the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 provide a package by itself, which has been applied to the employees of the Corporation, then the provisions of gratuity act, were not applicable, the Supreme court held as follows: “ We have examined carefully the provisions of the Pension Rules as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a special provision for payment of gratuity, unless there is any provision therein which excludes its applicability to an employee who is otherwise governed by the provisions of the Pension Rules, it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of gratuity act. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a special provision for payment of gratuity, unless there is any provision therein which excludes its applicability to an employee who is otherwise governed by the provisions of the Pension Rules, it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of gratuity act. The only provision which was pointed out is the definition of “employee” in Section 2(e) which excludes the employees of the Central Government and State Governments receiving pension and gratuity under the Pension Rules but not an employee of the MCD. The MCD employee, therefore, would be entitled to the payment of gratuity provided for under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension Rules will not disentitle him to get the payment of Gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the provision for gratuity under the Pension Rules will have no effect. Possibly for this reason, Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has conferred authority on the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the operation of the provisions of the Act, if in its opinion the employees of such establishment are in receipt of gratuity of penisonary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. Admittedly, MCD has not taken any steps to invoke the power of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that the employees of the MCD would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity act notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the Pension Rules have been made applicable to them for the purpose of determining the pension. Needless to mention that the employees cannot claim gratuity available under the Pension Rules.” 31. Following the above decisions of the Supreme Court and while examining the expression “employee” under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices v. Smt. Sham Dulari (supra), held as follows: “ According to the definition of expression employee, any person who is employed on wages in any establishment, factory, mine, etc,. Supdt. Of Post Offices v. Smt. Sham Dulari (supra), held as follows: “ According to the definition of expression employee, any person who is employed on wages in any establishment, factory, mine, etc,. who may be performing the duty of a skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, supervisory, technical or duties of clerical nature, has been included in the expression ‘employee’. However the expression “employee’ is not to include a person who holds a post under the Central Government of State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity. The respondent-workman is not governed by Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as has been expressly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 3 of the judgment in Union of India v. Kameshwar Parshad (supra) case. It has further been held that the Extra Departmental Agent are entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and they are governed by separate set of Rules, namely, the EDA Rules. Therefore, it does not follow that the Extra Departmental Agent hold a post under the Central Government for the purpose of pension and gratuity.” .32. Dealing with the aspect as to whether any exemption has been granted to the ED Telegraphic Agents, the Division Bench further held that, .“There is no declaration under Section 5 exempting the application of the Gratuity Act to Extra Departmental Agents. Moreover, the EDA Rules, are not more beneficial than the benefits which are available to the respondent - workman under the Gratuity Act. Such a declaration could not have been given by the Competent Authority exempting the Extra Departmental Agents from the operation of the provisions of the Gratuity Act. Therefore, on principle as well as on precedents, we have reached the conclusion that the view taken by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority are not open to any attack in law and it does not furnish any opportunity to interfere with the same. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the order dated 28. 2003 (P-3) passed by the Controlling Authority and the order dated 1. 2006 (P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority.” .33. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the order dated 28. 2003 (P-3) passed by the Controlling Authority and the order dated 1. 2006 (P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority.” .33. Clause 1 of the Director General’s instructions states the ED Agents as defined in P &T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, whose services are terminated otherwise than (i) for unsatisfactory work or (ii) as a measure of disciplinary action or (iii) in consequence of their being appointed in a regular post under P&T Departmental may be sanctioned monetary grants termed as ‘Gratuity’, provided that they have put in not less than ten years of continuous satisfactory service as ED Agents. As per Clause 2, “Continuous Service” for the purpose of the order of the Director General of Postal and traffics shall mean only such continuous service rendered in any capacity as an ED Agent. Clause 5 states that an ED agent, who becomes eligible for the grant of gratuity as indicated above, may be granted gratuity at the rate of half month’s basic allowances as drawn by him immediately before the termination of service for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of Rs. 6,000 or 16 ½ months’ basic allowance last drawn, whichever is less. As per Clause 6, the gratuity admissible in accordance with the above conditions shall be purely ex gratia. 34. “Ex gratia: is a payment of money out of moral obligation rather than legal requirement and it is a grace extended by an employer. A conjoint reading of Clauses, 1, 5 and 6 of the Director General’s instruction, show that ED Agents, as defined in P&T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, and whose services are terminated, otherwise than (i) for unsatisfactory work; (ii) as a measure of disciplinary action; and (iii) in consequence of their being appointed in a regular post under the P&T Department may be sanctioned monetary grants termed as ‘Gratuity’, provided that they have put in not less than ten years of continuous satisfactory service as ED Agents, subject to the maximum of Rs.6,000/- of 16 ½ month’s basic all allowance, whichever is less. Payment of gratuity act is a beneficial legislation and it should be construed as far as possible, in favour of those, for whose benefit, it is intended. Payment of gratuity act is a beneficial legislation and it should be construed as far as possible, in favour of those, for whose benefit, it is intended. The Act is not intended to take away the retrial benefits already existing and available to the employees. The benefits conferred on the employees do not mitigate against the benefit of gratuity under the Act and it is the duty of the Court to see that the employee gets the maximum benefit. The benefits conferred on EDDA employees of postal establishments, as per the DG’s instructions are far less compared to the one granted under Payment of Gratuity Act. The said aspect has also been well considered by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices v. Smt. Sham Dulari (supra) case. 35. In view of the Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court on the point and earlier decisions of the Supreme court in Union of India v. Kameshwar Parshad (supra) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Daram Prakash Sharma and Another (supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liabie to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. 36. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent are directed to pay the balance amount of gratuity to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Petition allowed.