JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. The short issue which arises for consideration in the present petition, is as to whether findings of fact returned by the authorities below, holding the respondents herein entitled to the benefits of payment of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are borne out from the record; can be said to be perverse or illegal, warranting interference by this Court, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not? 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. Private respondents were engaged by the Forest Department of State of H.P. in different divisions; they have discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the employer; they have been regularly withdrawing their salaries. 3. Only for the reason that their employment was on daily wage basis , benefit of payments under the provisions of the Act stood declined to them. 4. The Controlling Authority-cum Labour Officer vide order dated 28.5.2012, passed in Case No.Nil titled as Sh. Ram Dass vs. The Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure P-1), held the employees entitled to gratuity for the reason that they were fully covered under the definition of an employee as stipulated under the provisions of sub Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act. 5. However, the said order confined benefits of payment of gratuity only for a limited period. 6. Significantly, the State accepted the said order by not preferring any appeal. Thus, then eligibility and entitlement of the employee for benefit of payment of gratuity under the Act stood accepted. 7. However, dissatisfied by the order only the employees approached the appellate authority claiming gratuity for the entire period for which they were entitled to i.e. the length of service including the period of service they had rendered as daily wagers. 8. The appellate authority allowed the appeal in terms of order dated 19th August, 2015, passed in Case No.JLC/HP/Gratuity/5-6/2012, titled as Shri Ram Dass vs. The Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure P-2). 9. 8. The appellate authority allowed the appeal in terms of order dated 19th August, 2015, passed in Case No.JLC/HP/Gratuity/5-6/2012, titled as Shri Ram Dass vs. The Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure P-2). 9. We notice that the issue in question is no longer res-integra, for the apex Court in its decision dated 23.3.2018, passed in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, titled as Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., itself has held similarly situated employees entitled to the benefits of payment under the Act, also for the period, for which the employees had rendered their services on daily wage basis. This fact is evidently clear from Paragraph 17 of the report which reads as under:- “In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering “continuous service” for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services ere regularized by the State.” 10. Service rendered on daily wages would be earned as a period of the service for payment of gratuity. 11. In view of the same, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19th August, 2015, passed in Case No.JLC/HP/Gratuity/5-6/2012, titled as Shri Ram Dass vs. The Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure P-2), for we do not find the reasoning adopted or the findings returned to be perverse, illegal or erroneous in any manner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. The amount, if deposited, be released to such of those applicants who have already filed the applications and furnished particulars of their bank accounts. Liberty reserved to the remaining applicants/respondents to file appropriate applications. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is disposed of, so also, pending applications, if any.