JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Parth Patel and learned Assistant Government Pleader waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The Junagadh District Panchayat has filed this petition challenging the award of the Controlling Authority dated 10.09.2020 in Gratuity Application No.11 of 2019 and order of Appellate Authority dated 28.12.2021 in Gratuity Application No.102 of 2021. By the order dated 10.09.2020, the Controlling Authority has directed to pay gratuity of Rs.2,42,828/- with simple interest @ 10% after 30 days from the date of retirement. The order of the Controlling Authority, Junagadh has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.12.2021, in Gratuity Appeal No.102 of 2021. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Parth Patel for the respondent workman. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the award of Controlling Authority, Junagadh dated 10.09.2020 is erroneous since it has erroneously counted the initial service rendered by the workman prior to his regularisation. The workman was offered work as a daily-wager w.e.f. 02.04.1983 and thereafter taken on work charge establishment on 01.10.1988. After 01.10.1988, he was taken on Hangami establishment on 01.10.1993 and he superannuated on 03.06.2016. The workman superannuated as Class-III employee. At the time of superannuation, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.36,400/- and thus, he had rendered 28 years of service by counting the service from 01.10.1988 till the date of superannuation. Since the Controlling Authority had counted his earlier service from of initial appointment, the order is erroneous. Further, the workman is receiving pension and other retiral benefits and therefore, provision of Gujarat Civil Service Rules (for short ‘G.C.S.R.’) would be application and therefore, as per G.C.S.R., the workman would be entitled to gratuity for 33 years’ service and therefore, the order of Controlling Authority counting more number of years of service is also erroneous. He submitted that since the provision of G.C.S.R. is applicable, the orders of Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are erroneous. Further, both orders are without jurisdiction as the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act would not be application in the present case and G.C.S.R Rules would be applicable. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Parth Patel for learned advocate Mr. Further, both orders are without jurisdiction as the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act would not be application in the present case and G.C.S.R Rules would be applicable. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Parth Patel for learned advocate Mr. Shrineel Shah submitted that the order of Controlling Authority counting the service from the date of initial appointment is correct. Admittedly the workman had joined service w.e.f. 02.04.1983 and superannuated on 30.06.2016. Therefore, the workman completed 33 years of service. He could not deny the fact that the workman is receiving pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and therefore provisions of G.C.S.R. would be applicable. He submitted that now the law is settled that the initial date of service is required to be counted for payment of gratuity and therefore, the workman would be entitled to 33 years of service for gratuity. 6. Considered the submissions. Admittedly, the workman joined on 02.08.1993 and retired on 30.06.2016 and his last drawn salary was Rs.31,613/- which the Controlling Authority in the order dated 10.09.2020 had taken into consideration. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalappa Lingappa vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. reported in (1981) 2 SCC 238 , it is clear that for the period, the workman worked as temporary or casual workman is to be reckoned for counting the number of years of service for payment of gratuity. Thus, all the years from the date of his joining either as casual or temporary, where the workman had completed 240 days in a year are to be reckoned for payment of gratuity. In other words, the years in which the workman had completed 240 days, are to be reckoned for determination of number of years of service for payment of gratuity. The workman however would be entitled for gratuity, not beyond 33 years of his service. 7. In this case, the workman had rendered 33 years of service and completion of 240 days in a year is not in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to make payment of gratuity as directed by the Controlling Authority and confirmed by Appellate authority. 8. In view of above, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged.