A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present letters patent appeals are directed against the order dated 15.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No. 16814 of 2017 to No. 16820 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No. 14251 of 2016, whereby the writ petitions have been partly allowed by directing the appellants herein (original respondents) to pay the gratuity amount as directed by the Controlling Authority vide orders dated 29.12.2014.

2. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is against the provisions of the rules and regulations governing the gratuity. It was submitted that the cases of the present respondents would be governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and accordingly, they were rightly paid the gratuity amount at the relevant time. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the orders passed by the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity to the respondents herein is required to be sustained. No further contentions are raised.

3. This Court has perused the order dated 15.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions. This Court has also perused the orders passed by the Controlling Authority dated 29.12.2014 whereby the Controlling Authority after detailed examination, has directed the present appellants to pay the difference of amount of gratuity to the concerned respondents-employees.

4. On a perusal of the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court does not find any infirmity therein so as to deny the benefits of gratuity to the respondents-employees. The learned Single Judge has, after considering that the employees are paid gratuity under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 and provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has held thus:

"5.2 Special Civil Application Nos. 16814, 16818, 16819 and 16820 of 2017 are partly allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.12.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act at Ahmedabad qua (i) Arvindbhai Khodidas Kachhia, (ii) Popatsinh Madhaji Rathod, (iii) Revabhai Ishwarji Parmar and (iv) Ambalal Parshottam Parmar are not interfered with on merits, however the calculation is modified to the extent of entitlement of the concerned employee, under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the details of which are noted in the statement quoted in para : 4.3 above. The said modified amount is directed to be paid to the concerned employee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. So far the direction to pay interest is concerned, the same is not interfered with."

5. The Controlling Authority after examining the service book and the pension papers and after considering the fact that the appellants have only made part payment of gratuity to the respondent-employees, viz : (in case of respondent of Special Civil Application 16819 of 2017, 23 years of service though he has rendered 34 years of service as per the service book), it has directed the appellants to grant gratuity for the entire period after deducting the amount already paid to them. It is settled position of law that an employee is eligible for gratuity for the entire period of continuous service after it is regularised and which is treated for the purpose of grant of pension. No contention was raised before the Controlling Authority as well as before the learned Single Judge that the respondents are not entitled to gratuity for the period prior to their regularization or they had not rendered continuous service as provided under section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity, Act, 1972. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the learned Single Judge.

6. Before parting with the