1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 24.05.2018 passed in P.G. Appeal No.16/2018 arising out of Application No.36/(14)/2016.E.6 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondent- Damodar Valley Corporation before the appellate authority under the provision of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been allowed by which the order passed by the controlling authority under Sections 7(2) and 7(3) of the Act, 1972 read with sub Rule 1 of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, has set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he has joined service as Seasonal Message Assistant on 01.06.1978 and continued on the said post for a period from 01.06.1978 to 31.10.2004 and thereafter on 20.05.2005, was appointed as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist at Grid Operation and Maintenance Department-II, Damodar Valley Corporation, Maithan, and superannuated from service on 31.01.2014.

The grievance of the petitioner that although he has performed his duty for a period of 20 years under the respondents but the gratuity of said period has not been paid and as such application was made before the controlling authority for disbursement of the gratuity of amount for aforesaid period, by deciding the claim the controlling authority has passed an order after hearing the respondent-Corporation on 30.11.2017 holding therein that the petitioner is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,55,816/-as the amount of gratuity, in consequence thereof, directed the respondent-Corporation to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of the finding.

3. The respondent-Corporation has invoked the jurisdiction as conferred under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by preferring an appeal before the competent authority challenging the order dated 30.11.2017 the appeal has been allowed by which the order dated 30.11.2017 has been set aside, which is under challenge on the ground that he is entitled to the gratuity amount in view of the provision of Section 2-A which stipulates the definition of continuous service and since the petitioner has discharged his duty continuously, therefore, he is entitled to get the amount of gratuity and considering that aspect of the matter, the controlling authority has decided the claim in favour of the petitioner but the appellate authority without appreciating the provision of Section 2-A, in right perspective, has reversed the order passed by the controlling authority.

4. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Damodar Vally Corporation, has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the controlling authority for the reason that the petitioner is not coming under the fold of the definition of continuous service since according to his admission, he has performed duty only for 153 days, therefore, as per the provision made under Section 2(A)(2), since he has not discharged service as required under the aforesaid provision, therefore he is not entitled to get the gratuity due to having not discharged continuous service.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court thinks fit and proper to deal with the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which is relevant for adjudication of the issue agitated in this writ petition.

The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been enacted by virtue of the Act, 39 of 1972 implemented w.e.f. 21.08.1972 in order to provide a scheme for the payment of gratuity, the employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Section 4 stipulates regarding payment of gratuity which shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous servi