JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition (CWP-3911/10) is directed against order dated 26/07/1996 whereby after hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("Gratuity Act"), taking note of its earlier judgment in the case of Ramshanker Dubey, observed that case of present employees being identical there is no necessity to file reply to the claim application and accordingly, directed the petitioner employer to make payment of Rs. 10,125/- towards gratuity to the respondent-employer; against which, appeal was preferred and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal after assigning detailed reasons vide order dated 30/09/2009 (Ann.2). 2. CWP-3912/2010 & 3914/2010 are directed against common order dated 10/04/1998 whereby after hearing the parties, and taking note of written statement & the evidence led by the parties, the Prescribed Authority under Gratuity Act, 1972 decided claim Appl.No.4/97 & 5/97 filed by employees (Bajranglal & Nand Gopal respondents herein), while placing reliance upon its earlier order dated 21/09/1994 in the case of Ramashankar Dubey (Claim No.3/1991) and directed the employer (petitioner herein) to pay gratuity determined vide order dated 10/04/1998 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of their having left the service till actual payment - against appeals were preferred by petitioner employer which came to be dismissed vide orders dated 30/09/2009. 3. It is relevant to record that there are certain employees being engaged by Kota Thermal Power Project of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, after they stood retired from Railways, for the period between years 1980 & 1995; and after they left the service, gratuity was claimed for their service rendered. 4. In case of present petitioner, after having retired from Railways, he worked in the Organisation from 15/09/1984 to 30/06/1993 for almost Nine years, for which he was not paid gratuity; that being so, claim applications were filed by such employees under the Gratuity Act. 5. It is relevant to record that a number of claim applications were filed before the prescribed authority under Gratuity Act; and in Claim Appl. 5. It is relevant to record that a number of claim applications were filed before the prescribed authority under Gratuity Act; and in Claim Appl. 3/1991 (Shri Ramashankar v. AEN Railway Operation Thermal Power Project RRVUNL Kota ), after affording opportunity of hearing & considering contentions of respective parties and taking note of the the Scheme of Gratuity Act and so also the fact that the employee had worked for the period between the year 1983 and 1990 in Thermal Power Project after being retired from Railways, the Prescribed Authority finally arrived at the conclusion that such employees are also covered for grant of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and vide order dated 21/09/1994 (xerox copy whereof has been placed for perusal by Counsel in course of arguments today) directed the employer (present petitioner) to pay gratuity to the employee (Ram Shankar Dubey) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 15/05/1991 till actual payment of gratuity. 6. However, when application of present respondent-employee came up before Prescribed Authority, taking note of the order dated 21/09/1994 passed in Rama Shanker Dubey's case (supra), his claim application was disposed of directing the petitioner employer to pay gratuity claimed by employee within thirty days vide order dated 26/07/1996 (Ann.1) against which appeal was preferred by petitioner employer and at the stage of appeal, facts were taken note of period of service which the claimant rendered and finally the appellate authority assigned detailed reasons holding that respondent employee is covered for grant of gratuity under the Act, 1972 and vide order dated 30/09/2009 directed to make payment of gratuity in terms of order dated 26/07/1996. 7. Basic bone of the contention is that the prescribed authority disposed of claim of the employee without affording opportunity of hearing and in the absence of any reply being filed & the evidence being led by the parties, merely on the basis of earlier order passed by the authority in case of Shri Rama Shanker Dubey (supra) but the appellate authority has not take note of legal objections having been raised and taking note of the facts having come up for consideration, finally held that respondent employee is entitled for gratuity and dismissed the appeal of present petitioner. Counsel further submits that the procedure adopted by appellate authority being in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the matter being examined without taking note of material, is called for interference and deserves to be quashed. 8. At one stage, when the matter came up for consideration before the Court, vide order dated 22/03/2010, Counsel was directed to produce copy of the decision passed by the authority in the case of Rama Shanker Dubey, which could appreciate as to whether claim of present employee was identical to that of Rama Shanker Dubey for entitlement of gratuity under the Act, 1972. A copy whereof has been placed for perusal, which discloses that there were employees having been engaged by present petitioner after they stood retired from Railways and they worked in Thermal Power Project for the period period Year 1980 to 1995 and for the period during which the claimant rendered service, the prescribed authority held him entitled for payment of gratuity under the Act, 1972. 9. It is true that after the claim was filed and notices were served upon the employer, the authority ought to have afforded opportunity of hearing, which is basic cardinal principles of natural justice for being strictly followed. However, once the controversy raised before the authority was already decided in the case of Rama Shanker Dubey, no incriminating material having come on record which may distinguish the facts in which the order was finally passed earlier and even before this Court, nothing has been placed on record by present writ petitioner to justify that facts in the case of Rama Shanker Dubey are distinguishable and the respondent employee herein is not similarly situated, in the opinion of this Court, the employee is entitled for the gratuity which has been held by the authority in the case of Rama Shanker Dubey. 10. That apart, at the stage of appeal preferred by the petitioner, facts of respondent employee-PD Sharma was taken into consideration and it has been admitted in the instant petition about service being rendered by the employee, that being so taking note of earlier order passed in the case of Rama Shanker Dubey, appellant authority re-examined and in totality of the facts of respondent employees, held that the employee is entitled for gratuity under the Act, 1972 and the appeal was dismissed. 11. 11. It is relevant to record that total gratuity which became payable to respondent employee-PD Sharma, was Rs. 10,125/- which is otherwise not called for interference. After examining material on record, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed. Consequently, writ petitions petitions being devoid of merit fail and are hereby dismissed.Petitions dismissed. *******