( 1 ) IN these writ petitions, the Life Insurance corporation of India (the LIC for brevity) impugns the order of the controlling authority dated September 21, 1998, as confirmed by the appellate authority on October 11, 1999, under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing payment of gratuity amount to the third respondent/ employee. As the question that arises for consideration is the same and the petitioner is also the same, the writ petitions are being disposed by this common order.

( 2 ) THE facts are in a narrow compass. The respondent-employee served the LIC as class-III employee and was promoted to class-I later. The employee retired after total service of 33 years. While calculating gratuity lic followed its own rules, which resulted in payment of less amount. The employee preferred an application before the authority claiming the difference of amount towards gratuity. He alleged that the LIC is covered by the Act, that the LIC displayed the Act prominently in all its offices, that after Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Amendment Act for brevity) the administrative Officers and Managers were also brought under the purview of the Act and that instead of calculating gratuity on the basis of last drawn salary, LIC calculated gratuity on a notional salary drawn by the employee as higher grade assistant and thereby wrongly determined gratuity amount. The employees, who are arrayed as third respondent in the writ petitions, claimed difference of gratuity at rs. 51,338. 73 (sic) in WP No. 10624 of 2000, rs. 38,153. 62 (sic) in WP No. 10632 of 2000 and Rs. 43,628. 12 in WP No. 10637 of 2000.

( 3 ) THE LIC opposed the cases filed by the employees under Section 7 of the Act inter alia objecting the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act to hear the case and also on the ground that LIC employees are not entitled to claim gratuity under the Act, but are entitled for the gratuity under LIC of India Class-I Officers (Revision of terms and Conditions) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter called the LIC Rules) as amended from time to time. The LIC also stated before the authority that Class-I Officers are governed by the LIC Rules and therefore the respondent-employee is entitled to claim gratuity at the rate of one month s terminal basic pay for each completed year of continuous service or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of fifteen months basic pay upto thirty years of service and for service over thirty years half a month s terminal basic pay for each completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months. It also stated that as there is no specific Rule in the Act for paying gratuity to Class-I Officers of LIC they are not paid the gratuity under the act and they are paid gratuity under the LIC rules only.

( 4 ) THE original authority held that the LIC did not follow the principle of calculating gratuity on the basis of last drawn salary and that the LIC Rules do not disentitle an employee to claim higher benefits under the Act. The original authority also held that though a class-Ill employee like respondent/employee is promoted as Class-I Officer (Assistant administrative Officer) LIC still calculated gratuity in such a manner that employee was paid less gratuity. Had the employee continued a Class-Ill Officer and retired after attaining the age of superannuation the employee would have been entitled for higher gratuity than what is now paid by the LIC. Accordingly, controlling authority directed the LIC to pay the difference of gratuity amount to the employee.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the original authority dated September 21, 1998, Zonal manager of LIC, Hyderabad, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act. The appellate authority by a well reasoned order dated October 11, 1999 rejected the appeal. It was held that the officers of LIC are not exempted from the provisions of th