Ashok Parihar, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 4- the concerned employee was appointed as a Teacher in the appellant institution on 19.7.1951. Though he stood retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 4.7.1992, however, as per the terms of contract and relevant rules, he was given further extension of two years and finally retired on 4.7.1994. In the meanwhile, the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rules made thereunder namely; The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant In Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules of 1993 came into force on 1.4.1993.
(2.) Having denied the benefit of Gratuity, the concerned employee approached the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal for claim of the Gratuity. The appeal of the concerned employee was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.1998 thereby directing the appellant to make payment of Gratuity to the concerned employee as per provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as referred in the Rules of 1993 itself with interest. Large number of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court by respective institutions challenging the orders of the Tribunal in regard to the payment of Gratuity. However, the learned Single Judge by a common order dated 15.4.2002 dismissed all the writ petitions including that of the present case also.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, while heavily relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Swaroop vs. Municipal Council and another, reported in 1998 (6) SCC 338 as also Secretary, ONGC Limited and another vs. V.U. Warrier, reported in 2005 (5) SCC 245, has submitted that the concerned employee had already reached the age of superannuation on 4.7.1992 and further two years' extension was only reemployment, as such, the concerned employee could not have been given benefit of Gratuity as per provisions of the Rules of 1993 which came into force only on 1.4.1993.;