JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner was a Sanskrit Teacher in Gurukul Kangri University, Kankhal, Haridwar. He reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.03.2001. He has received all other benefits except gratuity, and regarding his gratuity, his application has been rejected by respondent no.1/Controlling Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 30.09.2004 holding that Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is not applicable for teachers and teachers are not eligible for the grant of gratuity. This order has been challenged before this Court. 2. Although this matter is pending before this Court since 2004, but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and today by the consent of both the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 3. The fact of the matter is that as far as order dated 30.09.2004 is concerned, no fault can be found, as the order states the correct legal position at the relevant time which was that the Payment of Gratuity Act was not applicable to the teachers. However, the law itself has changed meanwhile by an Act of Legislature itself, and therefore, it needs a fresh consideration of this Court. 4. The background is as follows: 5. The Government of India vides its Notification dated 03.04.1997 has extended the Payment of Gratuity Act to educational institutions as well, but even such educational institutions, it was not applicable to teachers and that was settled legal position as upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Association Vs Administrative Officer reported in 2004 (1) SCC 755 . Subsequent to the said judgment, however, an amendment was brought by the Legislature in the year 2009 under section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act wherein it has given retrospective effect to the provisions of Amendment Act, 2009 deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 03.04.1997. 6. The important fact here is that this amendment was made applicable w.e.f. 03.04.1997. The fact of the matter, therefore, is that the retrospectivity of the Act has not been made by way of any interpretation of Court, but this retrospectivity is brought by the Legislature itself. Normally an Act by Legislature is applicable from the date when it comes into force, unless it is specifically stated in the Act itself. The fact of the matter, therefore, is that the retrospectivity of the Act has not been made by way of any interpretation of Court, but this retrospectivity is brought by the Legislature itself. Normally an Act by Legislature is applicable from the date when it comes into force, unless it is specifically stated in the Act itself. The amending Act specifically states that Section 2 (e) will be made applicable w.e.f. 03.04.1997, therefore, there is no doubt as far as retrospectivity is concerned and that is the only factor in the present case. 7. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is now partly allowed. The order dated 30.09.2004 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. However, it is further directed that the authority concerned shall consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid finding as well as in the light of the changed position of law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.