JUDGMENT : Surendra Mohan, J. This Writ Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2016 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.31919 of 2014. As per the judgment appealed against, the learned Single Judge has held that the respondent was a person coming within the ambit of the definition "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to pay gratuity to the respondent as calculated under the Kerala Service Rules (KSR for short), but subject to the maximum of Rupees ten lakhs provided by Section 4(b) of the Act. The Gratuity is directed to be calculated and paid within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. The short facts of the case are summarised as under: The respondent is a person who has retired from service on 31.05.2014 as an Associate Professor from the Sree Vyasa N.S.S. College, Vyasagiri. P.O., Thrissur, a Private Aided College affiliated to the Calicut University. The respondent has 31 years of service to her credit. Upon her retirement, her pensionary benefits were calculated and paid to her. However, according to her, she was paid only an amount of Rupees seven lakhs as her Death Cum Retirement Gratuity relying upon Rule 68, Part III of KSR. It was contended that, the provisions of the Act, were applicable to her and since the maximum amount of gratuity payable to an employee has been enhanced to Rupees ten lakhs by amendment, she was entitled to be paid the full amount of gratuity calculated on the basis of the total service to her credit. 3. The contentions of the respondent were resisted by the appellants pointing out that the provisions of the Gratuity Act were not applicable to teachers and that, the respondent had been paid the entire amount of gratuity that was due to her as per law. A counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit were filed refuting the claim of the respondent. 4. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and held that the provisions of the Gratuity Act were applicable to teachers including the respondent. A counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit were filed refuting the claim of the respondent. 4. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and held that the provisions of the Gratuity Act were applicable to teachers including the respondent. Since the ceiling limit of the gratuity payable has been enhanced by the amendments of 2010, the respondent was entitled to be paid gratuity calculated on the basis of her total service subject of course to the maximum limit of Rupees ten lakhs stipulated by the amended provisions of the Act. The State has filed this appeal aggrieved by the said judgment. 5. According to Sri. C.M. Suresh Babu, Senior Government Pleader who appears for the appellants, the respondent had retired as an Associate Professor from an aided college. Teachers are not covered by the provisions of the Gratuity Act. Though the definition of "employee" contained in Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act has been amended in the year 2009, teachers have not been specifically included therein. Though Section 2(e) as amended refers to "shop or other establishments to which this Act applies", the said expression cannot be construed in such a way as to include educational institutions in which persons like the respondents were employed. In the absence of specific inclusion of teachers or educational institutions in the definition, it is contended that teachers are entitled to claim Gratuity only on the basis of the provisions of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1976. Our attention is drawn to the averments in the Writ Petition to point out that even according to the respondent, Calicut University First Statutes govern the terms and conditions of her employment. Going by the provisions of the said Statutes, the provisions of the KSR are to apply to teachers like the respondent. As per the provisions of the KSR, it is contended that the respondent has been paid the entire gratuity that was due to her. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the amount due to her was Rupees seven lakhs. It is further contended that, in the case of employees who are governed by other Statutes, the provisions of the Gratuity Act would have no application. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the amount due to her was Rupees seven lakhs. It is further contended that, in the case of employees who are governed by other Statutes, the provisions of the Gratuity Act would have no application. Since the respondent was being paid salary by the State, the exclusion in Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act of persons holding posts under the State Government would also exclude the respondent from the provisions of the Act, it is contended. Therefore, the learned Senior Government Pleader seeks interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. Per contra, Advocate D. Sreekumar who appears for the respondent contends that by the amendment to Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, teachers have been brought within the scope of the definition. In fact, according to the learned counsel, amendment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2009 was effected with the specific object of bringing teachers within the ambit of the Gratuity Act. According to the learned counsel, though it is true that the respondent is governed by the Calicut University First Statutes, which in turn makes the provisions of KSR applicable to her, the provisions thereof cannot and does not preclude her from claiming the benefit of the provisions of the Gratuity Act. Reliance is placed on exhibit P4 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in support of his contention. Therefore, in view of Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, this Court has rightly held that the provisions thereof would apply overriding the effect of any other provisions that are applicable. It is therefore contended that, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. Heard. The first contention put forward by the learned Special Government Pleader is that, teachers like the respondent are not persons coming within the scope and ambit of the Gratuity Act. However, we notice that the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 was introduced in the wake of pronouncement of the Apex Court in the decision in Ahmedabad Pvt. Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer and others [ (2004) 1 SCC 755 ]. In the said decision, while considering the question as to whether teachers came within the scope of the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the Apex Court has held in paragraph 25 as follows:- "25. In the said decision, while considering the question as to whether teachers came within the scope of the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the Apex Court has held in paragraph 25 as follows:- "25. The legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of the word "employee" contained in various previous labour enactments when the Act was passed in 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition of "employee" all kinds of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 which defines "employee" to mean any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or other wise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment...". Non-use of such wide language in the definition of "employee" in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 reinforces our conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the definition." 8. In the statement of objects and reasons to the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, it has been stated as follows:- 3. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proposed to widen the definition of 'employee' under the said Act in order to extend the benefit of gratuity to the teachers. Accordingly, the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was introduced in Loksabha on the 26th November, 2007 and same was referred to the Standing Committee on Labour which made certain recommendations. After examining those recommendations, it was decided to give effect to the amendment retrospectively with effect from the 3rd April, 1997, the date on which the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to educational institutions. It has been further clarified that the bill that was introduced was to achieve the said objective. Thus, the definition of "employee" contained in Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act was amended and the words "or other establishment to which this Act applies" was inserted. We notice that, the said amendment received the assent of the President on 31.12.2009 and was published in the Gazette of India on the same date. Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act states that, it has been brought into force with effect from 03.04.1997. We notice that, the said amendment received the assent of the President on 31.12.2009 and was published in the Gazette of India on the same date. Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act states that, it has been brought into force with effect from 03.04.1997. In view of the above amendment introduced with the object of bringing in teachers also within the provisions of the scope of the Gratuity Act, it has to be held that the respondent who has admittedly retired as an Associate Professor of an educational institution is a person covered by the provisions of the Gratuity Act. 9. The second contention canvassed before us is that, since the Calicut University First Statutes provide that the pensionary benefits due to teachers including Family Pension and DCRG shall be governed by the provisions of Part III KSR as amended from time to time, the respondent would be entitled to claim gratuity only subject to the limit stipulated by the said provisions. However, the above contention has to fail for more reasons than one. In the first place, as rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent Section 14 of the Gratuity Act has provided an overriding effect to the provisions of the Gratuity Act in the following words:- 14. Act to override other enactments, etc.—The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. 10. A Division Bench of this Court has considered the effect of the above provision in the context of Part III KSR in relation to an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short). As per the said judgment (Exhibit P4 in the Writ Petition) dated 08.01.2008, disposing of W.A.No.1062 of 2003 and W.A.No.1938 of 2004 speaking for the Bench, Dattu CJ (as he then was) has held as follows: 15. Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment under the Act. Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment under the Act. The sweep of this Section clearly provides that the right to claim gratuity by an employee under the provisions of this Act is not based on any contract, but a right which arises out of the provisions of the Statute itself. The Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma ( AIR 1999 SC 293 ) has held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a special provision, shall have an overriding effect over any scheme that might have been adopted by the concerned employer, and even if the benefit is availed of under the concerned scheme, the employee would be entitled for payment of gratuity under the Act. In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the claim of the respondent. Another contention put forward is that, the definition of "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Act excludes a person who holds a post under the State Government. Therefore, the respondent who is paid salary by the State should be excluded. The respondent was admittedly working as a teacher in a private aided college. Therefore, she cannot be considered to be a person who was holding a post under the State Government. It is true that, the State Government is paying the salary of the teachers of the Private Aided Educational Institutions under the Direct Payment System. However, that by itself cannot and does not bring a person like the respondent within the scope of exclusion contained in Section 2(e). The provision excludes only a person who holds a post under the State Government. The learned Single Judge has rightly found that teachers of aided private colleges are not appointed by the Government but, by the Management. Such appointments are only approved by the University later on. For the reason that the salary is paid by the Government, it cannot be held that persons like the respondent are holding posts under the State Government. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment appealed against. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.