'ffyw HIGH COURTOF CHHATriSGARH: 81LASPUR WritPetWonN<a.2^9of20® Petitloner Respondents Shn;B;t-;' Soni, S/o.Shri O.L Soni,.^ed abbut 68 years., Retd. Teacher, ,Nutan '.•f-ligher.SecQndar^Sohobl,Dhamtan{CG). Versus ' • . ; - ..; ' ' :: ; l.^.'Fh&AppetlateAuthority.UnderPaymentof GnatHity' Act, 1972/ , Dy.' Labour CommJssioher, GeetanjaK Nagar, Raipur: 2. The Controtiing. Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act Kutehery Chowk, Raipur 3. TOe Chairman, Adarsh.Siksh'a Samiti, C/o. Nut3n NlQher Secondsn/ School. Dhgnitsn \::(C:G^ • ,\ . ,\ . 4. Secretary, Adarsh Siteha Samiti, C/o. Nutan Higher.Secondgn/ School, Dhamtari 'f^n\ • ''• • '••'•• •.••''•.•- t^'-'.l- . (VVrit Petition under Article 226/227 of the Gonstitution of India.). SB: Hon'bieMr. SaSsh K.Agmhotri.J. Present: Shri H.N. Vyas, counsel fOFthepetJtianef. (Passed on 22"d day ofjufy, :'''; ^, in the present case, the petitioner is seeking gratuity after Fetirement The petitionerwas a Teachersuperannyated^ on 30-4-1998. The'petitionerpreferred an appiiGation before the Controiiing Authority. Thg Controlling Authonty by order dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P/iV$ direoted the respondents No. 3 and 4 to make payment of grat.uity igno.''ing tne deoisions of the Supreme Court in the mattere of miss A.Sundarmbat Vs. Govt. 6f 6oa, Daman & Diu and others anff Ahniedabad Pvt. Prtmary Teacher's Assn. Vs. Administrative Officer and others^, • • ! l'.:- ,-.'. • :;1";".,'. • •l.'\''.': 2) ; -; The responctents No. 3 and 4 preferrec} an;appeal before tf-ie-A|3peltate .Auihority. The Appetlate Au[hority'j3^.order^dated^17-12-2302 (Arinexure Pfl) IAlR198gSCI7uO 2:(2()B41-SCC75> -•2. w allowed the appeai fiied by the respondent No:3 'nolding that the petitibner, being a Teacher, is not entitled to gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, "the Aot, 1972"). Hence, this petition. , 3) Learned oounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the Controlling Authority is proper and iegal, The Appellate Authority'ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Controiling Authority. 4) The question of law asto whether a Teacher is entitied to gratuifry' under the provisions of the Act, 1972 is no ionger res integra. The Supreme Court in the matters of iWIss A. Sundarmtsal (supra) and Ahmsdabad Pvt. Primary Teacher's Assn. (supra) held that 'Teaoher' is noi an 'employee' under the provisions of the Act, 1972, hence not erititied to gratuity. 5) This Court in the matter of the Board of Secondary Eduoation ana' T.T.M.P: Chureh of North india and'another Vs. The Cqntrolling Authorify under Payment of Gratuitv Act 1972./Asstt. Labour Commissioner and others, also considered the same issue and in its order dated 26-2-2006 heldtnat theTeacher is not entitied to grant of gratuity under the Act, 1872. 6) Accora'ingly, there is no merlt in thls case. The petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agmhotri w Raju Judge