BB•I •^-^ M •Ltw-' •4.;;:? sa PETITIQNER -RESIONDENTS ;^^Mffi@Peffii8?iia3iiE2i(»^^^ MaheiidraK^arM Lal, resideiit of^istan^^ l^shavnagar fif^ , Kududatid, District Bifaspur, :; ,€hitattisgarh.'; .^.: :;' ,:::. !. .' •: , .: ':-^il;:/, '^ .VERSIJSY Y';;.. !. ;:,.::, .'•;;.:':'.'';.;^ 1: .Shephar Memonat Middk StAoot^^^ ^ Secretary,KiMiudan(^DistriGtBilaspur,^^^C^ 2. AppeBateAwthonty(Under^Paymentof<3ta^^ 1972) Deputy Utour Comimssicmer, Chfia^sgaill, •^istri(rt:Raipur,::aifaattisgaih...;:,..:;;'.',^ (WI®PEimONUNHERARIICI^Z^^ (SB: Han'MfrI^Sali&K.Agmhot^ PreseritiShriPraffltBhaiatAdvoeafefbrffi^ ShnP.S.I^shy,^dYoc^%theresponderitNQ.l; ^ aORAI.Om»ER •• . . :::.- ;. :; (Passcd ciit titfs 23rd dayflfJtriy, 2008) l.'%Wtheconsetrtof1toeparties,the^ffl 2. Inllieprese^ca^^ petitionerv^ a Teaehersuperan^ preferred an appliGation fe ContrcdlingAuthortty^ ^tte raspomleMs No. F fo ma&e^;^ dectsions ctflfie Supremsecrart ^the matteKpfM^^^^ ys.;;Goyt. of Gi»a,:D^an?&'®m^antf'ofhje]E^:s:'and^h^ :1':';Triaiary:-!Teacher's:As^'^^;..Sji|^^ ^A]Ki9S8SG170ff i2 (20041 :SeC.T55;' ''<" :I 1 .';., x l^ahu 3. The responaent^No. 1 preferred^ appeal^efere the Appellate Autliori^ TheAppeIlatBAuthQrilybyorderdafed 30.01.Q3(Anc^^ the appeal filed by the re^ondent NQ. 1 hoMing that^^^^te 'beiag a Teacher, is not entitled to gratuity under fhe provisions of fhe Payment ofGratuity Act, 1972 (forsfaort,^eAct, 1972"). HGnce^^^ 'petition.' , '::. . • ': ' : ''' - ' ' ;: ; ' 1' ::: 'i' ;: 4. Leamed counselappearingforthepetitioner submitsfhatthe orderofthe Conteolling Authority is proper Emdlegal. The Appellate Authority^ought not to have interfered with the onlerpassedtoytheControUmgAzrthority. 5', The questioh oflaw asto whether a Teacher is entitied to gratuity under the prbvisions ofthe Act, 19'72 is no longer ?%$ m^na!. The Supreme Court in the matters ofMiss A. Suhdarmbal (supra) and Ahmedabad Pvfc PrmuryTeacher's As^ (supra) held that 'TeachCT 'emplpyee under the provisions ofthe Ac4 1972, hence nat fintMetl to gratuity. • • • :: : , ' ' . 6. Ttiis Court in the matter of fhe Board of Secondary Education and T.T.M.P. CUurch of North India and another Vs. The Controllin^ ^ti' •' • • . •.'..' .; •-1- Authority under Pdyment of Gratuity Act 1972./Asstt. Labour Gommissioner and others, also considered the same issue and in its brder dated 26-2-2006 held fhat the Teacher is not ®ntitledto' grant ofgratuity undertheAcfc 1972. ^ - 7. Accordirigly,! there is rio merit m this case. The petition is dismissed; No orderastocosts. Sd/'- Satish K. Agmhstri Judge ^ ;'asif