JUDGMENT : Bhagwati Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant in this case is aggrieved by the fact that he has only been awarded gratuity for the period he served with the State Government. His case is that after his services were transferred from the State Government to the Sangh, it was the case of the continuous service and that State Government should pay gratuity for the continuous employment, also where he remained with the Sangh. 3. We are afraid that this argument of the learned counsel fall short of being no employment with the State Government. The appellant was given option to choose the services of the State Government and the Sangh but having opted the services of the Sangh, he cannot claim that he was in continuous service of the Government. Therefore, the directions given by the learned single Judge for the payment of the gratuity for the period they rendered the services with the Government is perfectly right and is in accordance with law. 4. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for. No force. The appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of main appeal, no order in civil application.