ORDER H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 24.4.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A and the order dated 22.10.2011, passed by the third respondent, vide Annexure-C. By the impugned order at Annexure A, the 2nd respondent has directed the 2nd petitioner to deposit gratuity of Rs. .1,23,628/- within 30 days. Failing which to pay interest @ 10% p.a. Aggrieved by that, the 2nd petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. By order dated 22.10.2011, the appeal has been dismissed. Therefore, this writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts are: The 1st respondent joined service as Light Majdoor on daily wage basis on 13.5.1976. The service of the 1st respondent has been regularized on 1.1.1990. The 1st respondent retired from service on 31.12.2007 and filed an application for payment of Gratuity. The Controlling Authority i.e., the 2nd respondent, by order dated 24.4.2010 has directed to pay gratuity of Rs. .1,23,628/- within 30 days, failing which, to pay interest @ 10% p.a. Aggrieved by that, the 2nd petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The third respondent by order dated 22.10.2011 has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have erred in directing to pay gratuity of Rs. .1,23,628/- from 13.5.76 till 31.12.2007. The service of the 1st respondent has been regularized from 1.1.1990 and therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 were not justified in directing to pay the gratuity from 13.5.1976. He therefore submitted that the impugned orders at Annexures-A and C cannot be sustained in law. 4. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the impugned orders do not call for interference. He also submitted that the 1st respondent was appointed as Light Majdoor on daily wage basis on 13.5.1976. Thereafter, his services have been regularized on 1.1.1990. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 were justified in directing to pay gratuity from 13.5.1976 till 31.12.2007. He placed reliance on the unreported decision of this court in W.A. No. 2761/2000. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. The 1st respondent has joined service on 13.5.1976. He placed reliance on the unreported decision of this court in W.A. No. 2761/2000. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. The 1st respondent has joined service on 13.5.1976. His services have been regularized on 1.1.1990. The 1st respondent has retired from service on 31.12.2007. These facts are not in dispute. The Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 2761/2000, disposed of on 6.12.2000, has held, if the employee has worked for more than one year or six months in a calendar year and subsequently, his services have been regularized, he is entitled for gratuity from the date of his appointment. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader and accordingly, it is rejected. The respondents 2 and 3 were justified in directing to pay the gratuity from 13.5.1976 till the 1st respondent has retired from service on 31.12.2007. Therefore, the impugned orders do not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners shall deposit the amount without further delay.