JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. The present appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant-original petitioner against the common judgment and order dated 10.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 25144 of 2007 and other allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions. 2. We have heard Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned AGP appearing for the State and perused the material on record. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. While deciding the petitions, the learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14 has observed as under:- "12. Considering the facts of the case decided by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in light of the facts of the case before hand, exercise of power to exempt establishment from Gratuity Act, 1972 depends on two conditions. One condition is that the benefit available to the employees should not be less favourable than the benefit under the Gratuity Act and if there is retrospective exemption, then, it should not cause prejudice to interest of any persons. In the instant case, considering the statement submitted by learned Advocate Mr. PG Desai before this Court showing calculation of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act and the payments of gratuity, commutation as per the BCSRs, it is clear that the benefits available under the BCSRs are more favourable and better than the benefits available under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Not only that, over and above the benefit of gratuity and commutation available under the BCSRs, employees would also be eligible for the pension, family pension etc. which would be regular income of the employee and dependents of employee in case of death of employee. Payment of Gratuity under the Gratuity Act is one time payment to the employees or their heirs whereas under the BCSRs Pension Rules, apart from one time payment of gratuity, the retired employees get regular monthly pension till their life time and further in case of death, family pension to the dependent family members. The benefits available under the Bombay Civil Service Rules provides a better support system to the retired officer/employees and their dependents unlike the benefits conferred by the Gratuity Act. The benefits available under the Bombay Civil Service Rules provides a better support system to the retired officer/employees and their dependents unlike the benefits conferred by the Gratuity Act. This aspect has not been challenged by learned Advocate Mr. Singh before this Court but his attempt was to have both the benefits at a time which is not permissible as per law. Therefore, submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Singh are not acceptable and same are rejected and these petitions are required to be dismissed. 13. The petitioners are not able to justify their claim of gratuity under the Act, 1972. The petitioners are those who have retired or resigned after 14.12.2001. Therefore, they are governed under exemption notification dated 14.12.2001. The exemption given from Act, 1972, then, question of claiming benefits under Act, 1972 does not arise unless notification dated 14.12.2001 is set aside. The petitioners want double benefits, one of pension as per BCSRs and also benefits of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which cannot be given as per decision of this Court as referred above 1999 (2) LLJ 830. Therefore, petitioners have failed to establish their claims and also failed in pointing out any infirmity in the impugned notification dated 14.12.2001. The petitioners have also failed to establish before this Court that the benefits under the Act, 1972 are better and more favourable in comparison to the benefits under the BCSRs. They have also failed to establish that the benefits under the BCSRs are less favourable/beneficial in comparison to the benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. These two conditions incorporated in section 5 satisfied that benefits under the Act 1972 are less favourable, then, State Government is competent and empowered to grant exemption from Act, 1972 to class of employees working under any Establishment which has rightly been considered by the State Government while issuing notification of exemption dated 14.12.2001. 14. It is a settled law laid down by the apex court and this court from time to time that the Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision itself. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited to finding out if there has been any error in the decision making process. Learned Advocate Mr. 14. It is a settled law laid down by the apex court and this court from time to time that the Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision itself. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited to finding out if there has been any error in the decision making process. Learned Advocate Mr. Singh for petitioners has not been able to point out any error in the decision making process or violation of the relevant provisions of the Gratuity Act or any other law warranting interference of this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned notification. The decision dated 26.10.2006 is also legal and valid and no error has been committed by respondent no.1 in making the said decision. The notification being a valid piece of subordinate legislation, the petitioners cannot claim any right under the Gratuity Act. His claim to gratuity is governed by the BCSRs Pension Rules and as indicated above, being a retired employees, they cannot claim any right to gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed." 3. Having carefully gone through the discussions made by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has, for cogent reasons, dismissed the petition. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Further, learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to contradict the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is completely justified in dismissing the petition. Therefore, in our view, it will not be appropriate to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.