JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. - This order shall dispose of the above captioned Writ Petitions, which have been preferred by Baddi University - a Private Institute, set up under the Baddi University of Emerging Sciences & Technologies Act, enacted by the State Legislature, challenging the orders dated 17.9.2016 and 2.2.2019, passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the said Act, respectively. The Controlling Authority accepted the claim of the respondents-employees, regarding payment of gratuity, whereas the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner''s - University''s appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority. 2. Since the facts of all the cases are similar, suffice it would be to refer to the brief facts of the lead case, i.e. CWP No.679 of 2019. 3. Respondent Birbal Kumar was appointed as Hostel Warden (Boys) (a non-teaching post) w.e.f. 01.02.2010 and he served as such till he resigned from service on 28.07.2015. The respondent is said to have submitted an application for payment of gratuity, firstly on 24.12.2012 and then again on 21.03.2016, but having failed to receive any payment, he filed a formal claim before the Controlling Authority. 4. The stand taken by the petitioner-University was that it has adopted the Ordinance formulated by the H.P. University and the gratuity is payable as per "Rules relating to the Teachers of Non-Government Affiliated Colleges", which are appended as Annexure-A with the Hand Book of the H.P. University and a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. The second objection of the petitioner-University was that the claim of the respondent-employee was time barred and thirdly, he was not entitled to claim gratuity as he had resigned from service. 5. The above stated objections, nevertheless, did not find favour with the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority and both have accepted the claim of the respondent(s)-employee(s), giving rise to these writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously raised and reiterated the same contentions, urging that gratuity is payable as per the H.P. University Ordinance, hence, no claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972 Act) was maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously raised and reiterated the same contentions, urging that gratuity is payable as per the H.P. University Ordinance, hence, no claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972 Act) was maintainable. He relies upon Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972 Rules), to contend that the claim of the respondentsemployees was time barred and that it being a case of ''resignation'' from service, the respondent-employee was not entitled to the benefit of gratuity. 7. Having pondered over the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-University, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. We say so, firstly for the reason that the Rules as formulated by the H.P. University and adopted by the petitioner(s)-University, admittedly pertain to grant of gratuity to the "Teachers" and the same are not applicable for non-teaching employees. Secondly, even if an employer has evolved its own Scheme for payment of gratuity to its employees, it is obligatory on such employer to establish that the Scheme so formulated is more beneficial than the Provisions of 1972 Act. No such plea was pleaded or proved by the petitioner-University. Section 14 of the 1972 Act provides that 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. In the light of overriding effect of Provisions of 1972 Act, the first contention is liable to be rejected, more so when there is no Scheme evolved by the petitioner(s)-University for its non-teaching employees. 8. The second objection re: limitation is also misconceived. Rule-7 of the 1972 Rules contemplates that an employee, who is eligible for payment of gratuity, shall ordinarily apply within thirty days from the date the gratuity becomes payable, in Form 1 to the employer. Sub-rule (5), however, clearly stipulates that if an application for payment of gratuity is filed after the expiry of the period specified in this Rule, the same shall be entertained by the employer if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay and no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period. 9. 9. In the instant case, it is pleaded case of the petitioner-University that the employee-claimant applied for payment of gratuity on 24.12.2012, much before he resigned from service on 28.7.2015. His claim, thus, cannot be taken as barred by time-limit under Rule-7 of the Central Rules, 1972. 10. The third objection, namely, that the respondent-claimant having ''resigned'' from service is not entitled to gratuity, is to be merely noted and rejected. Section 4 of the 1972 Act provides that: (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years - (a) ........., and (b) on his retirement or resignation, or .................... Thus, the Legislative Scheme itself expressly provides payment of gratuity even to an employee who has resigned from service, provided that he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. All the employees-claimants in the cases in hand, who were working as Hostel Warden, Lab Technicians, Lab Demonstrators, etc., fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions. Their claim was thus rightly entertained and accepted by the statutory authorities. 11. No case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.