JUDGMENT : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Petitioners in both the above filed petitions (Managing Committees of their respective School as named in memo of parties), are aggrieved against the orders dated 04.08.2022 and 18.08.2022, respectively, vide which, the learned Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (the ‘Tribunal’), while partly allowing the respective applications filed by private respondents directed the petitioner – institutions to make the payment of gratuity after carrying out pay fixation from their respective dates of superannuation. 2. Relevant facts of the case in CW No. 18124/2022 briefly are that during his lifetime, petitioner Premsukh Gaur (deceased private respondent) filed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1989’) before the Tribunal stating therein that he was selected/appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 12.07.1977 after following the due process. Thereafter he got promotion on the post of Assistant Headmaster and superannuated on 31.08.2008. It was stated that the petitioner institution is registered under the Rajasthan Societies Act and is recognized by the State Government. It was further stated that he was entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 16 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 82 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1972’). It was stated in the application that the State Government had given the benefit of 6th Pay Commission under the Rajasthan Civil Services Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2008’). The applicant being an employee of a recognized institution is entitled for the pay fixation as per the Rules of 2008, but his school did not extend the said benefit to him. 2.1 Learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 04.08.2022 partly allowed the application filed by the applicant and directed that the petitioner Managing Committee to make payment of gratuity pay fixation as on the date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2008. 3. Likewise relevant facts of the connected CW No. 16579/2022 briefly are that Smt. Godawari Purohit (now deceased) was initially appointed on 28.11.1983 and was promoted to the post of Senior Teacher on 31.12.1991. On 14.10.1994 she was promoted to the post of Vice Principal and thereafter she was promoted as Principal vide order dated 27.08.1997. She superannuated on 01.05.2008. 3. Likewise relevant facts of the connected CW No. 16579/2022 briefly are that Smt. Godawari Purohit (now deceased) was initially appointed on 28.11.1983 and was promoted to the post of Senior Teacher on 31.12.1991. On 14.10.1994 she was promoted to the post of Vice Principal and thereafter she was promoted as Principal vide order dated 27.08.1997. She superannuated on 01.05.2008. She also filed an application before the Tribunal stating that she was entitled for payment of gratuity. She sought directions to the petitioner Managing Committee for grant of gratuity. 3.1 Vide its order dated 18.08.2022 Tribunal partly allowed the application filed by the applicant. It directed the petitioner Managing Committee to make payment of gratuity pay fixation as on the date of superannuation i.e. 01.05.2008. 4. The defence taken on behalf of private respondents is that the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 was specifically enacted by the Parliament to retrospectively amend the definition of Clause 2(e) ‘employee’ w.e.f. 03.04.1997. Intent was to rectify the error or lacuna identified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers’ Association with objective to extend the benefit of gratuity to the Teachers of private education institutions. Furthermore, the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 29.08.2022 rendered in Independent School’s Federation of India (Regd.) v. Union of India & Anr. 2002 SCC Online SC 1113. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the competing contentions of learned counsels. I shall now proceed to render my opinion on the same by recording reasons in the succeeding part of the order. 6. First and foremost, de hors the merits, pertinent it is to note here that the preliminary objection has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioners in course of the arguments that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents, since concededly the institute where they worked is a non aided one and, therefore, was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the aforesaid argument. The same is being noted only to be rejected. Reasons are not far to seek. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the aforesaid argument. The same is being noted only to be rejected. Reasons are not far to seek. Trite law it is that objection qua the jurisdiction has to be taken at the very threshold of the proceedings before the court entertaining such proceedings and not after having succumbed to the jurisdiction and after addressing the issue on merits. 7. In the present case, it is borne out from the record that no objection, whatsoever, either at preliminary stage or even at the stage of final arguments was taken before the Tribunal that it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents. It is only after the Tribunal having gone through the matter thread bare and having rendered the findings on the merits that in the instant writ petitions filed before this Court such an objection has been taken for the first time. On that ground alone, the aforesaid objection is liable to be overruled. 8. Aside from what I have observed above, even otherwise there is no prohibition or bar under the Rules of 1989 to entertain claim of an employee, who is working in a non aided institute. In this context, the definitions in Section 2 particularly Clauses (p) & (q) contained therein are relevant and the same are extracted herein-below: “(p) “non-Government educational institution” means any college, school, training institute or any other institution, by whatever name designated, established and run with the object of imparting education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognized by the State or Central Government or functioning for the educational, cultural or physical development of the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by any University or local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government. (q) “recognised institution” means a non-Government educational institution affiliated to any University or recognized by the Board, Director of Education or any office authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf.” 9. (q) “recognised institution” means a non-Government educational institution affiliated to any University or recognized by the Board, Director of Education or any office authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf.” 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions leaves no manner of doubt that not only there is no bar envisaged on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain claims of the employees working in non-Government educational institution, as well as, recognized institution, but on the other hand they have been specifically covered within the powers of the Tribunal by virtue of the respective definitions ibid. 10. Still further, the Tribunal has been empowered to entertain applications with respect to conditions of service by an employee working in a recognised institution (as are the petitioner Schools herein) under Section 21 of the Act of 1989. Said Section being relevant is also reproduced herein-below: “21. Application to the Tribunal: (1) Where there is any dispute between the management of a recognised institution and any of its employee with respect to the conditions of service, the management or the employee may make an application in the prescribed manner to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final. (2) Any dispute of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) and any appeal of the nature referred to in Section 19, pending before the State Government or any officer of the State Government immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, as soon as may be after such commencement, be transferred to the Tribunal for its decision.” 11. Let us now advert to the merits of the claim of the respondents. The late private respondents had filed their respective applications seeking payment of the gratuity, which, I am of the view that the petitioner Schools were/are liable to pay in accordance with law. 12. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a beneficial piece of legislation, no limitation has been prescribed for filing the claim for gratuity there under. It is the settled position of law that payment of gratuity is not a bounty payable to the employee by an employer. 12. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a beneficial piece of legislation, no limitation has been prescribed for filing the claim for gratuity there under. It is the settled position of law that payment of gratuity is not a bounty payable to the employee by an employer. In fact, it is the duty of the employer to determine the amount of gratuity as soon as it becomes payable without waiting for the application to be made on behalf of employee and the same should be arranged to be paid within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. 13. Payment of Gratuity has been made a statutory liability of an employer with an intent and aim to secure the financial well-being of employees post their service tenure. It reflects the recognition of the value of an employee's long-term dedication and service to an organization. The absence of a limitation period for filing claims for gratuity under this act underscores its intent to safeguard the rights of employees and ensure they receive their due benefits in a timely manner. Thus there is no gainsaying that gratuity is not to be treated as merely a discretionary favor bestowed by the employer upon the employee, but rather a rightful entitlement secured by law. Therefore, Gratuity is not a matter of benevolence but a legal obligation on the part of the employer, arising from the services rendered by the employee over the years. Duty casted on the employer to promptly determine the gratuity amount and arrange for its payment within 30 days of becoming payable underscores the proactive responsibility of employers in honoring their legal obligations towards their employees. This ensures that employees are not unduly delayed or burdened in receiving the gratuity which they are entitled to upon retirement, resignation, or death, as specified under the Act. And yet, ironically, both the employees herein (private respondents) died after their retirement in the mere hope of getting their dues in their lifetime. 14. In the parting, I may hasten to add here that in the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Division Bench judgment rendered in Rekha Dewani & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9489/2013 decided on 26.05.2015 (at Jaipur Bench). The same is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9489/2013 decided on 26.05.2015 (at Jaipur Bench). The same is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case. The case in hand pertains to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereas the question in lis before the Division Bench was the vires of Sections 16 and 29 of the Act of 1989 to the extent that the word aided debarred the employees of the non aided schools to seek pay parity with those of the counterparts working in the aided schools. The Division Bench held that they cannot claim any such parity of pay equivalence. In my opinion, the said judgment is not applicable here. 15. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents has lightly canvased that applicability of beneficial legislation conferring service benefits such as gratuity whose admissibility and computation is to be done under the Act of 1972. The question regarding applicability & entitlement of gratuity to a teacher in a private un-aided school after enactment of POG (Amendment) Act, 2009 is no more res integra in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgments in BIT v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2019 (4) SCC 513 and Independent Schools’ Federation of India v. U.O.I. & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 1113. 16. Both the writ petitions are thus dismissed. The petitioners (Managing Committees) are directed to carry out the necessary calculations qua the gratuity payable to the private respondents within a period of two months of the private respondents approaching them with web print of the instant order. Admissible interest as per the Payment of Gratuity Act shall also be paid to the private respondents as per the calculations.