1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 480/09 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 543/05 (Nagar Parishad, Kamptee .vs. Haridas s/o Maroti Lanjewar & another) LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO. 720/09 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 545/05 (Nagar Parishad, Kamptee .vs. Dindayal Giridharilal Yadav & another) LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO. 717/09 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 544/05 (Nagar Parishad, Kamptee .vs. Prabha Shankar Nathuji Bonde) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.W. Ghate, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.C. Naukarkar, Advocate for respondent no. 1, Mr. D.P. Thakre, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2010. 1] Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2] This Court has already taken a view in Letters Patent Appeal No. 400/09 decided on 08.10.2009 (Coram : A.P. Lavande & P.D. Kode, JJ.) and dismissed similar appeals. 3] We find that the establishment of the 2 appellant is governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Once the fact that the provisions which apply to the appellant are not in dispute, the only option available to the appellant is to claim exemption which admittedly is applied for. So long the exemption applied for is awaited, the appellant has no case to claim that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act would not apply. 4] The learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 has pointed out that the issue is no more open for debate in the light of the judgment delivered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi .vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma & another reported in 1998 II CLR 574. 5] In view of this position, the appeals do not merit interference and are rejected. Judge Judge J.