1 (1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4529/2007 (Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. The Secretary, Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, Jodhpur & Ors.) (2) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4493/2007 (Suresh Chandra Saxena v. The Secretary, Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan, Jodhpur & Ors.) Date of Order :: 11th July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.K.Trivedi, for the petitioners. Mr. D.K.Parihar, for the respondents. .... These two petitions for writ involve same question of law and, therefore, are disposed of by this common order. In both these petitions challenge is given to the orders dated 11.5.2004 passed by the appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act affirming the orders passed by the Controlling Authority, Jodhpur under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1972”). The Controlling Authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioners for gratuity under the Act of 1972 held that being teachers they are not employees and as such the Act of 1972 is having no application on that. The controversy involved in these petitions has already been resolved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shantiben L. Christian v. Administrative 2 Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal School Board, reported in [2001(91)FLR 660], holding therein that the teachers are not employed to do any skilled or unskilled manual work and, therefore, they are not employees as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shantiben L. Christian (supra), I do not find any error with the orders impugned. It is asserted by counsel for the petitioners that the respondent employer should have given gratuity to the petitioners as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 read with Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced as the petitioners retired quite prior to the application of the Act of 1989 and, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder cannot be applied to them. The petitions for writ are accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.