JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - The common challenge made in the entire batch of petitions is to the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Special Officer, Finance Department, Chhattisgarh wherein a cut off date has been fixed as 01.04.2013 for payment of gratuity to the persons who retired after 01.04.2013. These petitions are by the aided institutions. Since the question of law and facts raised in all the petitions are similar, they are decided by this common judgment/order.

2. The teachers of the grant-in-aided schools, who retired prior to 01.04.2013 filed the applications before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1972"). The Controlling Authority on such application ordered for payment of gratuity to the Institution which having been challenged in the appeal u/s 7 of the Act, the same was affirmed. The petitioners, therefore, primarily challenged their liability to pay the gratuity on the ground that they are 100% aided educational institutions, they are not required to pay the gratuity as the teachers were under the control of the State and further challenge is that the order of the State dt. 01.04.2013 inter-alia making a bifurcation to pay certain teachers with cut-off date over a period of time is illegal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the educational institutions, they are performing the State functions and get 100% grant-in-aid from the State according to the strength of teachers for payment of salaries. It is contended that earlier admittedly the teachers were not covered for the purpose of gratuity. Subsequent to the judgment rendered in Ahmadabad Private Primary Teachers Association Versus The Administrative Officer, 2004 1 SCC 755 , the amendment was carried out in the Payment of Gratuity Act on 31.12.2009. The Act is made applicable with retrospective effect i.e., from 03.04.1997. It is contended that the petitioners being aided schools, the appointment of teachers and their salaries are governed by by C.G. Ashashkiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam 1975 (hereinafter referred to "Adhiniyam 1975) and the Chhattisgarh Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to "Adhiniyam 1978"). The pleading is made that it is categorically stated that the petitioners get 100% grant-in-aid and there is no provision to collect fee from the students, as such, it has no source of income separately to pay gratuity to teachers. Learned counsel referred to the definition of 'employer' which finds place in Section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and would submit that u/s 2(f) the "employer" would cover the definition of words belonging to or under the control of Central Government or the State Government. The petitioners thereafter referred to the Act of 1978 and reading the provisions and definition, the counsel would submit that the teachers would require a necessary skill and should have been in hold of a degree as specified under the Adhiniyam, 1975 as recognition of the school also prescribes such conditions. It is stated that unless and until a person possesses the requisite qualification prescribed under the Act of 1975, he cannot not be appointed as a teacher. Consequently the school can get a recognition with fulfillment of conditions set out by the State and it is only on recognition, the aid can be granted. It is further submitted that the terms and conditions of the employee that too are regulated guided and controlled by the State Government as per the Act of 1975.

4. It is further stated that likewise for payment of salary, the teachers who fulfill the condition of recognition affiliation of the institution can claim the grant as the grant is paid separately for the teachers. Referring to 1978 Act, it is further contended that the institutions neither create any post of teacher nor can change the terms of service and even to dispense with the service, the State interve