JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr. Darshit Thakkar, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. Mr. Mayank Chavda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Vadodara Municipal Corporation as petitioner has filed this petition challenging an order of Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020 in Gratuity Case No.17 of 2018 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.09.2020 in Gratuity Appeal No.50 of 2020. It is case of the petitioner that both the authorities have erred in determining Gratuity by counting the service of respondent workman from 14.07.1993 to 01.02.2006. 3. Facts in brief, referred in the petition, are as under: It is case of the respondent-workman that he was working as Helper with the petitioner-corporation with effect from 14.07.1993. Upon completion of 12 years of service, he was made permanent by an order dated 02.02.2006 and retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. Upon retirement, he was paid Gratuity for the period from 02.02.2006 to 30.06.2017. Since the earlier period from his initial date of appointment, where he had worked as Daily Wager – Helper was not counted, he preferred an application before Controlling Authority registered as Gratuity Case No.17 of 2018, wherein Controlling Authority by counting the entire length of service awarded difference of Gratuity to be paid to the respondent-workman of Rs. 1,50,480/-. Interest at the rate of 10% was also awarded from 06.02.2018 till the actual date of payment. Aggrieved by order of the Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal registered as Gratuity Appeal No.50 of 2020. Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.09.2020 confirmed the order of Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Darshit Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 and Mr.Mayank Chavda, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that order of Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020, and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.09.2020 are erroneous because from the service book, it is evident that the respondent-workmen had worked from 02.02.2006 till he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2017. Amount of Gratuity was accordingly paid and therefore, both the orders are erroneous. 6. Amount of Gratuity was accordingly paid and therefore, both the orders are erroneous. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Darshit Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent-workman submitted that order of the Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020, as also order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.09.2020 are just and legal because both the authorities have considered the entire length of service, since the respondent had joined service as Daily wager- Helper with the petitioner-corporation on 14.07.1993. This aspect is evident from the service book of the respondent-workman, that upon completion of certain years of services, as per the settlement, the respondent-workman was made permanent with effect from 02.02.2006. Thus, it is not in dispute that the workman was working prior to 02.02.2006. Both the authorities have therefore, rightly considered the affidavit of the workman that he had joined the services with effect from 14.07.1993. 7. Considered the submissions. Admittedly, the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner-Municipal Corporation. The payment of Gratuity, upon retirement was paid for the period from 02.02.2006 to 30.06.2017. It was case of the respondent-workman that he had joined the services on 14.07.1993 as Daily wager - Helper and was made permanent with effect from 02.02.2006. In the opinion of this Court, both the authorities have rightly considered the endorsement made in the service book that upon completion of certain years of service, only permanency can be given to Daily wager workman. Moreover, no document was produced by the petitioner-corporation denying the assertion made by the respondent-workman in the affidavit that he had joined the services with effect from 14.07.1993. 8. In view of the above, the orders of Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, in the opinion of this Court, are just and legal and deserves no interference. In view of the above, the present petition being meritless, is dismissed. The amount of Rs.1,86,846/- towards Gratuity, as directed by the Controlling Authority under the order dated 03.04.2020, is hereby directed to be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.