S2. HiGH COURT OF CHHATriSQARH: BiLASPUI Shri S.R. Kridat, S/o. Shri K.R. Kridat, aaed about 67 years, Retd. Teacher Nutan Higher-Secondap/ School, Dhamtan (CG$. Versus Sespondents The Appeilate Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1S72/ Dy. Labour CQmmissioner, Geetanjall Nagar, Raipur. The Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (CG). " . z. 3. The Chairman, Adarsh Siksha Sarriiti, G/o. Nutan HigherSeconda^ Sohooi, Dhamtari (CG). ^ 4. Seoreiary, Aeiarsh Siksha Samiti, C/o. ^iutan Higher Secondary School, Dharritari (CG). i/rit Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India.) SB: Hon'bte SVir. Satlsh K. Shri H.N. Vyas', oounsel for the petitioner. (Passed on 22"'1 day ofJuly,2<»8) in the present case, the petitioner is seeking gratuity after retirement. The petitioner was a Teacher superannuated on 31 -7-1997. The petitioner preferred an application before the Controliing Authority. The Controlling Autho.rity by order dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P/1V) directed the respondents No. 3 and 4 to make payment of gratuity ignoring.the decisions of the Supreme Court in .the matters of Miss A. Sundarmbai Vs. Qovt. of Goa, Daman & Diu and others anc! Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teacher's Assn. Vs. Administrative Officer and The respondents No. 3 and 4 preferred ah appeal before the Appellate Authoritv. T'ne Appeliate Authority by order dated 17-12-2002 (Annexure P/1) atiowed the appeai filed by the respondent No.3 hoiding that the petitioner, being a 'AIRiSgsSC 1700 2 (20041-SCC 755 Easan I ;I -3f Teapher, is not entitied to grafuity under the prpyisions of the Rayment of Gratuity Aei, 1972(f6rshort,"the'Aot,1S72").-Mence,thispetition. , . 3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitibner submits that the ordef of the Gontrolling Authority is proper and iegal. The Appellate Authority ought not to have intefteredwiththeorderpassedbytheControiiingAuthority. . 4) The question of lawasto whether.aTeaoher isentitied to gratuity underthe provisions of the Aot, 1972.is no longer res tf7?egra. The Supreme Court in the matters of Miss A. Sundarmbal ^-.(supra) , 'anct Ahmedabad Pvt primary Tsacher's Assn..(supra) held that: 'Teacl-ieF'.js notan 'empioyee' under the provis!onsoftheAct,1972,hencenotentitlecitograluitv. ; 5) This Court in the matter of the Board ofSecondaFyEducationandT.T.M.P. Chureh of North india and another Vs. Tbe Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity'Act 1972./Assft. Labour Commissioner and others, aiso oonsidered the: same issue and in its order dated 26-2-2006 held that the Teacher is not entitfed to grantofgratuity underthe.Act, 1972. • 6) Accordingiy, there is no merit in tbis case. The petition is dfsmissed. No order asto costs. Raiu SdA sat"h^Agaihotri > lj