JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1683 of 2009. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 was engaged as English Teacher in appellant's No. 1 school on 1.3.1977. She retired on 31.12.2005. She was paid a sum of Rs. 68,850/- by way of gratuity on 6.6.2006. Respondent No. 1 made a representation on 16.6.2006 that the entire period of 28 years and 10 months has not been taken into consideration while paying the gratuity. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority on 16.11.2006. The complaint was allowed by the Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Officer on 29.12.2007. According to the Controlling Authority, respondent No. 1 was entitled to gratuity amount for 29 years' service. Since respondent No. 1 had already been paid a sum of Rs. 68,850/-, the Controlling Authority directed appellants to release the balance payment of Rs. 66,669/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of respondent No. 1. Appellant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority against the order dated 29.12.2007. He allowed the same on 18.11.2008. Respondent No. 1 assailed order dated 18.11.2008 by way of CWP No. 1683 of 2009, Learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 4.8.2011 and directed appellant No. 1 school to pay the balance amount of Rs. 48,600/- to respondent No. 1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Learned Single Judge further ordered that the amount be paid on or before 31.10.2011, failing which school was liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The appellant No. 1-school was also burdened with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. It is in these circumstances the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by appellant No. 1 and Shimla Chandigarh Educational Society through Fr. John Bosco, Principal, St. Edward's School, Shimla. Mr. K.D. Sood has vehemently argued that learned Single Judge has erred by allowing the writ petition on 4.8.2011. He has supported the order dated 18.14.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority. According to him, scheme, for the first time, was introduced in the appellant's school in the year 1988. Respondent No. 1 has been paid the amount of gratuity by way of gesture. Mr. He has supported the order dated 18.14.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority. According to him, scheme, for the first time, was introduced in the appellant's school in the year 1988. Respondent No. 1 has been paid the amount of gratuity by way of gesture. Mr. K.D. Sood has argued that respondent No. 1 did riot fall within the ambit of section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. We have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 3. Respondent No 1 was engaged as English Teacher in the appellant's school on 1.3.1977. She had put in 28 years and 10 months' service at the time of her retirement, i.e. 31.12.2005. She has been paid only a sum of Rs. 68,850/- by calculating her service for a period of 17 years. The Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority had ordered payment of balance amount by taking into consideration the service of respondent No. 1 of 28 years and 10 months. Stand of the school before the learned Single Judge was that respondent No. 1 is not covered under the definition of employee u/s 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The school has also relied upon Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 755 and the judgment passed by this Court in case The Managing Committee, Mohan Middle School (Now Primary School) Solan Brewery, Solan, Himachal Pradesh v. Joint Labour Commissioner on 8.5.2008. 4. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that there was a scheme in existence whereby the teachers were being paid gratuity. It is also evident from Annexure P-5 filed in CWP No. 1683/2009 that even in the year 1990 there existed gratuity scheme in the school. The gratuity was to be calculated on the basis of half month's basic pay for every year of service completed. The appellant's school has not placed on record the copy of scheme though existed. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge has rightly drawn adverse inference against the school. 5. Respondent No. 1 was to be paid the gratuity for the entire period of 28 years and 10 months and it could not be restricted to 17 years. The plea raised by the appellant that the payment was made by way of gesture cannot be accepted. 5. Respondent No. 1 was to be paid the gratuity for the entire period of 28 years and 10 months and it could not be restricted to 17 years. The plea raised by the appellant that the payment was made by way of gesture cannot be accepted. In fact, respondent No. 1 has been paid the gratuity as per scheme. The qualifying service of respondent No. 1 was 28 years and 10 months. Her salary at the time of retirement was Rs. 8,100/-. 15 days salary works out to be Rs. 4,050/-. Learned Single Judge has applied the formula as per Annexure P-5 and held respondent No. 1 to be entitled to a sum of 71,17,450/- by treating 28 years and 10 months to be 29 years. The management has only paid a sum of Rs. 68,850/- and the learned Single Judge has ordered the payment of balance amount of Rs. 48,600/- There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.8.2011. The school management on its own had been paying gratuity to the teachers as per formula mentioned in Annexure P-5 dated 6.12.1990. In these circumstances, the management has framed a scheme for paying the gratuity to the teachers. Since the management had already framed a scheme and paying the gratuity to the teachers, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. K.D. Sood that respondent No. 1 did not fall within the expression of section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The management had been paying the gratuity to the teachers of their own. The Judgments, i.e. Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 755 and the judgment passed by this Court in case The Managing Committee, Mohan Middle School (Now Primary School) Solan Brewery, Solan, Himachal Pradesh v. Joint Labour Commissioner relied upon by the appellant's school are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The observation made by the learned Single Judge that the stand of the school was dishonest are expunged. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.