Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) Instant petition (CWP-3911/10) is directed against order dt.26/07/1996 whereby after hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("Gratuity Act"), taking note of its earlier judgment in the case of Ramshanker Dubey, observed that case of present employees being identical there is no necessity to file reply to the claim application and accordingly, directed the petitioner employer to make payment of Rs.10,125/- towards gratuity to the respondent-employer; against which, appeal was preferred and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal after assigning detailed reasons vide order dt.30/09/2009 (Ann.2).
(2.) CWP-3912/2010 & 3914/2010 are directed against common order dt.10/04/1998 whereby after hearing the parties, and taking note of written statement & the evidence led by the parties, the Prescribed Authority under Gratuity Act, 1972 decided claim Appl.No.4/97 & 5/97 filed by employees (Bajranglal & Nand Gopal respondents herein), while placing reliance upon its earlier order dt.21/09/1994 in the case of Ramashankar Dubey (Claim No.3/1991) and directed the employer (petitioner herein) to pay gratuity determined vide order dt.10/04/1998 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of their having left the service till actual payment - against appeals were preferred by petitioner employer which came to be dismissed vide orders dt.30/09/2009.
(3.) It is relevant to record that there are certain employees being engaged by Kota Thermal Power Project of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, after they stood retired from Railways, for the period between years 1980 & 1995; and after they left the service, gratuity was claimed for their service rendered.;