$ SMT. SHAKUNTLA REKHI & ANR. ... Respondents. ^ Mr. Mata Din, Advocate. AND + WP(C) No.145/2005 # MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. ... Petitioner ! Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate Versus $ SH. RAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. ... Respondents. ^ Mr. Mata Din, Advocate. AND + WP(C) No.20097/2004 # MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. ... Petitioner ! Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate Versus $ SH. MATA DIN & ANR. ... Respondents. ^ Respondent No. 1 for himself and also for respondent No. 2. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.N. Aggarwal, J. (Oral) The only short question that needs consideration in these writ petitions is whether the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are applicable to the respondents after they had exercised their option to retain the pensionary benefits available to them under the Government Rules. 2 Brief facts of the case giving rise to these petitions are as follow: The respondents in all these three writ petitions were the employees of Department of Telecommunication prior to their absorption in the petitioner corporation (MTNL) w.e.f. 01.11.1998. Prior to the absorption of the respondents in the MTNL, the respondents were given an option either to retain the pensionary benefits available to them under the Government Rules or to receive prorata retirement benefits for the services rendered by them under the Central Government and to be governed by the rules of PSU w.e.f. 01.11.1998. The respondents in all these three petitions exercised their option to retain the pensionary benefits available to them under the Government Rules presumably because they were left with lesser period to serve the MTNL. All these three respondents in the present writ petitions have retired from the service of the MTNL on or around 2001. After their retirement, they were paid gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents were not satisfied with the payment of gratuity made to them under the CCS (Pension) Rules and therefore they filed separate applications before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for payment of difference of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority vide its order dated 12.02.2004 held that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to the respondents and therefore directed payment of difference of gratuity payable under the CCS (Pension) Rules and that payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the said respondents. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner (MTNL) preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 02.11.2004 agreed with the decision of the Controlling Authority and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 3 Aggrieved from the order of the Appellate Authority dated 02.11.2004, the petitioner has filed these three petitions seeking setting aside of the order of the Controlling Authority dated 12.02.2004 and also that of the Appellate Authority dated 02.11.2004. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are governed by the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules and not by the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in view of option exercised by them to retain the pensionary benefits available to the Central Government employees. 4 Mr. Agnani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that in case the respondents would have exercised the second option of getting prorata retirement benefits for the services rendered by them under the Central Government and to be governed by the rules of PSU w.e.f. 01.11.1998, in that event the petitioner would have paid them gratuity as per the provisions contained in the Payment of