JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The petitioner - Rajkot District Panchayat, by way of this petition has challenged the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Rajkot in Gratuity Appeal No.158 of 2018, wherein and whereby, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Case No. 94 of 2017. The Controlling Authority, by the order dated 10.04.2018, directed the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,41,346/-, with interest at the rate of 10% w.e.f. 01.02.2017, over and above the amount already paid to the respondent No.1. 3. The short facts of the case, as emerge from the record of the petition are that the respondent No.1 was offered work as a daily wager on 16.12.1987 and he was superannuated on 31.12.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation and in the process, he had worked for 29 years and on those facts, he approached the respondent No.3 authority by way of filing Gratuity Case No.94 of 2017 praying for differential amount of gratuity under the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per the record produced by the respondent No.1, it is clear that the petitioner was regularized in employment and released various benefits on the basis of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Government of Gujarat and also released pension as well as gratuity on his retirement. It is submitted the respondent No.1, who was paid an amount of Rs.2,03,063/- as per the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002 is granted and additional amount of gratuity of Rs.1,41,346/- vide order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 as if the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are also applicable. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, has further submitted that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have fallen in error in granting the gratuity to the respondent No.1 over and above, which was paid to him. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.2,03,063/- was already paid by the petitioner and thereafter, accepting the said amount, respondent No.1 has filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming further amount of gratuity. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.2,03,063/- was already paid by the petitioner and thereafter, accepting the said amount, respondent No.1 has filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming further amount of gratuity. It is submitted that the order passed by the Controlling Authority was erroneous and required to be set aside. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Jeet Y. Rajyagruru, has submitted that the authorities below, after examining the facts and the material produced before them and looking to the tenure of service of the respondent No.1, has rightly granted additional amount of gratuity to the respondent No.1, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority do not require any interference of this Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that this petition may be rejected. 6. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the relevant documents. 7. This Court has perused the order of the Controlling Authority. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was serving as a daily wager and he was offered work by the petitioner on 16.12.1987 and had superannuated on 31.12.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. Even as per the record produced by the respondent No.1, it is clear that he was regularized in employment and released various benefits on the basis of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Government of Gujarat and also released pension as well as gratuity on his retirement. Thereafter, while calculating his gratuity, the petitioner granted Rs.2,03,063/- in his account and being aggrieved by the said amount, he preferred an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority, after examining the issue threadbare and the pay-slips of the respondent No.1, vide order dated 10.04.2018, directed the petitioner to pay additional sum of Rs.1,41,346/- along with 10% interest. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Controlling Authority by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act and vide order dated 02.11.2018, the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. 8. A perusal of the impugned order of the Controlling Authority reveals that the petitioner has not disputed with the fact that the respondent No.1 was being paid monthly salary of Rs.24,500/-. 8. A perusal of the impugned order of the Controlling Authority reveals that the petitioner has not disputed with the fact that the respondent No.1 was being paid monthly salary of Rs.24,500/-. The respondent No.1 had also produced his last pay-slip in this regard. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has entered into the service and he was appointed on 16.12.1987, while calculating 29 years of service, the Controlling Authority had concluded that the amount of Rs.1,41,346/- is also further required to be paid over and above the amount of Rs.2,03,063/- to the respondent No.1. The said amount is paid for the period, he has rendered prior to regularization as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman is not entitled to gratuity, as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act, since he paid the gratuity as per the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.11.2017 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.119 of 2017. The Division Bench is a similar issue has observed thus: “4.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the only question which calls for the consideration of this Court is whether the continuous of service rendered by concerned employee as a daily wager is required to be counted for the purpose of calculation of amount of gratuity under the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act or not and / or whether the concerned employee is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period during which he worked as a daily wager or not. 4.1. That the concerned employees were not paid the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the period, they worked as a daily wager. They were also not paid the gratuity under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 for the aforesaid period, during which, they worked as a daily wager. 4.1. That the concerned employees were not paid the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the period, they worked as a daily wager. They were also not paid the gratuity under the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 for the aforesaid period, during which, they worked as a daily wager. Therefore, the concerned employee approached the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period they worked as a daily wager i.e. in the case of Special Civil Application No. 214 of 2016 for the period from 24.06.1983 to 22.06.1997 and in the case of Special Civil Application No.213 of 2016 for the period between 16.07.1985 to 14.07.1997. The Controlling Authority rejected the claim. The Appellate Authority confirmed the same. That after considering the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also provisions of Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, under which, the concerned employees were not paid the amount of gratuity during the period for which they worked as a daily wager and after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer reported in AIR 2004 SC 1426 , decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Lashkari Ram reported in 2008 I LLJ 137 and relying upon the other decisions of this Court referred to in para 13.1 to 13.2 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order has held that the concerned employees shall be entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act also for the period they worked as a daily wager, the period for which they were not paid the gratuity either under the Payment of Gratuity Act or under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002. 5.0. 5.0. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, under which there is no distinction between the regular employee and daily wager and there is no specific provision that daily wagers are not entitled to payment of gratuity and on the contrary considering the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, more particularly, Section 3 to 5 of the Act, any employee who has worked for not less than 5 years shall be entitled to the amount of gratuity and considering the proviso to Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, daily rated worker and even seasonal workers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in holding that the concerned employees are entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the period, for which, they worked as daily wager. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it is not the case on behalf of the State that for the aforesaid period, during which they worked as daily wagers, the concerned employees were paid the gratuity under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002. “9.1 The Division Bench of this Court, after considering the provision of the Gratuity Act as well as the Pension Rules has held that a daily wager is entitled to the gratuity under the Act for the period when he was engaged as a daily wager and after regularization of service, he would be entitled for gratuity under the provision of the Pension Rule. Thus, the Division Bench has specifically held that provision of the Act, more particularity section 3(2)(5) thereof provides that any employee, who has not worked less than 5 years shall be entitled to the amount of gratuity and considering the Proviso of Section 4 of the Act, a daily rated worker and even a seasonal worker is entitled for gratuity under the Act. 9.2 Though, the respondent workman had rendered 29 years of service, his gratuity was not paid for the period rendered by him as a daily wager and such period was ignored. The issue is no more res integra and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.11.2017. 9.2 Though, the respondent workman had rendered 29 years of service, his gratuity was not paid for the period rendered by him as a daily wager and such period was ignored. The issue is no more res integra and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.11.2017. Thus, while exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that the orders of the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are not tainted with any vice of mala fide, perversity or illegality, hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. The writ petition fails. Rule is discharged.