( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay gratuity and other terminal benefits with interest at 24 per cent per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she worked in the second respondent-school from October 8, 197 3/03/1994. At the time of her appointment, the management had undertaken to extend her all the benefits available under the state Government rules. The second respondent-school is managed and run by the third respondent, which is a public sector undertaking. The entire expenditure of the school is borne by the third respondent alone. She retired on attaining age of superannuation on 27/03/1994. She was paid all the terminal benefits on her retirement, but not gratuity. According to her, the teachers working in the Government schools and all the recognised schools are entitled for gratuity. She made representation to the management requesting them to pay the gratuity However, all her efforts went in vain. She also sent a registered notice to respondents 1 and 2. The management gave a very evasive reply, which is not tenable. Teachers subsequently retired in the very same school have been paid pension besides gratuity. The respondents having extracted the work from her are not justified in denying the gratuity. Gratuity is the right of an employee and is not a bounty or charity. She is eligible to receive gratuity from the respondent-school on her retirement.

( 3 ) AS seen from the reply notice, dated 10/03/1995, given by the first respondent, the school has not admitted nor agreed to extend the benefits under the State Government rules as alleged by the petitioner in her notice. There is no obligation on the part of the respondents to pay gratuity to all the retired employees nor there are any instructions in this regard issued by the Government to the school as alleged by her. Further, there is no provision for payment of gratuity and the petitioner is neither eligible nor entitled to make any claim at this distance of time. She was fully aware of the rule position in this regard and thus the first respondent acting illegally or arbitrarily does not arise. Further, the question of paying any interest muchless at the rate of 24 per cent per annum does not arise.

( 4 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, though appearance is made. In so far as respondents 2 to 4 are concerned, though notices were served, no representation is made nor is there any appearance on their behalf.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has placed her confirmation of appointment order, dated 12/03/1975, to show that she is eligible for other allowances as admissible under the State government rules in the grade of Rs. 96-6-144-8-200 subject to certain conditions enumerated therein. Further, it is stated that the school is registered under the Andhra Pradesh education Act (for short the Act) and the rules governing the payment of gratuity are also enumerated separately for the private registered and unaided schools and as such, she is entitled for gratuity as per those rules. Further, the counsel for the petitioner stated that even for the teachers working in the private management schools also the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972, is applicable, apart from being governed by the rules made under the act. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment reported in Tara Chand Chokdayat and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1999-II-LLJ-1279, wherein it is categorically held that the teachers in educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid are entitled to gratuity as contemplated under the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972, itself. Thus arguing for the petitioner, learned counsel stated that either way the petitioner is entitled for gratuity on her retirement as per the services rendered by her in the second respondent-school. The petitioner also placed reliance on a Governmental orde