JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Sr. counsel representing the petitioner. Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Central Govt. counsel appears for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, while the Regional Institute of Paramedical and Nursing Sciences, Aizawl (hereinafter referred to as the “Regional Institute”) (respondent No.4) is represented by the learned counsel Mr. D.C. Chakraborty. 2. At the very outset, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received all his other dues for the contractual service rendered by him as the Director of the Regional Institute, but nothing under the head of gratuity is disbursed for the service rendered from 18.02.1999 – 30.09.2004. According to the petitioner, the disbursal of gratuity is mandatory under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gratuity Act”). 3. The current Director of the Regional Institute has filed counter affidavit(s) on 27.02.2009 and 02.03.2016 and Mr. D.C. Chakraborty refers to the averments therein. He submits that provision is not made to pay gratuity for the employees of the Regional Institute and that is why he submits that when the payable dues under the other heads like leave encashment (Rs.81,414/-) and TA on retirement (Rs.31,932/-) is already disbursed to the contractual appointee, no further burden should be placed on the employer. 4. The Gratuity Act covers a diverse category of establishments under Section 1(3) of the Gratuity Act and how the payable amount is to be determined is provided under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. When an employee renders continuous service for not less than 5 years in an establishment covered under the Act, gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages for each year of service, become payable to the concerned employees. While the Act casts an obligation on the employer to disburse gratuity, providing for better terms by individual organization is also envisaged, under sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act. Section 14 is a non-obstante clause, which should operates notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, in any other enactments. 5. If we analyze the relevant provision of the Gratuity Act, it becomes clear that even when provision for gratuity payment is not made, a statutory obligation is cast in the organization to disburse gratuity to eligible employees. The Regional Institute at Aizawl operates under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. 5. If we analyze the relevant provision of the Gratuity Act, it becomes clear that even when provision for gratuity payment is not made, a statutory obligation is cast in the organization to disburse gratuity to eligible employees. The Regional Institute at Aizawl operates under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India, but at the relevant time when the petitioner was appointed on 15.01.1999 (Annexure-1), the establishment functioned under the North Eastern Council (NEC), Shillong. At that stage, the petitioner was serving as a Senior Specialist in the Civil Hospital, Aizawl and he was appointed as the Director of the Regional Institute on contract basis, initially for a period of 2 years, by the Secretary of the NEC. On satisfactory completion of the probation period, the appointment was confirmed w.e.f. 17.02.2001 and since it was a tenure appointment of maximum 5 years, the Director was permitted to serve the establishment until 30.09.2004. Thus he has rendered around 5½ years of contractual service, as the Director of the Regional Institute. 6. Considering the duration of the contractual service (above 5 years) and the likely number of employees in the Regional Institute, the applicability of the Gratuity Act to the establishment is most likely. But certain necessary details for a final conclusion, is not discernible from the case papers. 7. In the above circumstances, the lawyer for the Regional Institute Mr. D.C. Chakraborty submits that if the petitioner wants to pursue his claim for gratuity, he be permitted to address a representation and if such a representation is received quickly, the same will be considered on merit. This submission is acceptable to Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Sr. counsel representing the petitioner. 8. In view of the above consensus, the petitioner is permitted to address a representation to claim gratuity for the contractual service rendered by him as the Director of the Regional Institute. If it is presented within 4(four) weeks from today, the same should be considered with due regard to the provisions of the Gratuity Act and be disposed of with a speaking order. To facilitate the exercise, the petitioner must furnish a copy of this order along with his representation and the same is ordered to be decided with a reasoned order within 3(three) months thereafter. It is ordered accordingly. 9. With the above direction, the case stands disposed of. No cost.