( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.64 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.64 OF 2003 APPEAL NO.64 OF 2003 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.1709 OF 2002 St.Annes High School & Jr. College & Anr. .. Appellants V/s Mrs.Cecelia Pereira & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.C.Naidu i/by Mr.C.R.Naidu & Co. for the Appellants. Mr.J.D.Fernandes for Respondent No.1. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, AGP for Respondent No.4. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 20th February, 2008. DATE : 20th February, 2008. DATE : 20th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned AGP for Respondent No.4. The presence of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 is not necessary in view of the order which we propose to pass. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellants are challenging an order dated 24.9.2001 passed by the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for sake of brevity) holding that the original Respondent No.1 who was a Teacher in the Appellant School, was an "Employee" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. ( 2 ) 3. The order passed by the Controlling Authority was subject matter of challenge in Appeal filed before the Appellate Authority appointed under the Act. The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal vide order dated 24th September, 2001. 4. A Writ Petition impugning the concurrent orders passed by the lower authorities was preferred by the Appellant. By order dated 8th July, 2002 the Writ Petition was rejected in limine. 5. The learned Counsel for the parties are in agreement that as on date the issue whether a Teacher employeed in a School is an "Employee" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act stands settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad (P.) Ahmedabad (P.) Ahmedabad (P.) Primary Teachers’s Association V/s.Administrative Primary Teachers’s Association V/s.Administrative Primary Teachers’s Association V/s.Administrative Officer - 2004 I CLR 495. Officer - 2004 I CLR 495. Officer - 2004 I CLR 495. By the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Teachers as a Class are clearly not covered within the definition of the word "Employee" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and hence not entitled to Gratuity under the Act. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the issue raised in the Appeal is no longer res-integra. The Appeal will have to be allowed ( 3 ) and the order passed by the controlling Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24th September, 2001 will have to be quashed and set aside, which we hereby do. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant states that as a pre-condition for preferring an Appeal the Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1 lakh with the Controlling Authority. The Appellate Authority has permitted the opriginal Respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount so deposited by the Appellant. 7. The original Respondent No.1 expired on 3rd June, 2004. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that the original Respondent No.1 was suffering from cancer and the family incurred considerable expenses on account of medical treatment administered to the Respondent No.1. The family of the original Respondent No.1 had made a request to the Appellant to consider writing off the amount so received. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant has passed a Resolution on 2nd February, 2008 which inter-alia resolves that the amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited with the Controlling Authority and received by the original Respondent No.1 will be written off as ex-gratia without precedent in lieu of medical expenses incurred by her for her illness. ( 4 ) 9. In light of the aforesaid Resolution we direct that the amount of Rs.1 lakh paid over to the Late Mrs.Cecilia Pereira need not be refunded though orders passed by the lower authorities and the learned Single Judge are set aside. 10. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (ANOOP V.MOHTA, (ANOOP V.MOHTA, (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)