Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Five Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 406, 407, 408, 618 and 619 of 2009 arising out of adjudication of Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 3450, 3452, 3449 (decided on 4.3.2009), 5290 and 5291 of 2009 (decided on 1.4.2009) respectively by the learned Single Judge for adjudication are being taken up together as these are inter-connected.

The only issue to be adjudicated in these appeals is as to whether Extra Departmental staff of the Post Offices earlier governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964) and now governed by the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (for short, the Rules of 2001) is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Gratuity Act) and thus, is entitled for payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act by the employer? Private respondents in these appeals having superannuated from their respective posts (which they were manning), were paid ex-gratia gratuity @ half month's basic allowance as drawn by them immediately before laying down their offices for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of Rs. 18,000/- or 161/2 months basic allowance last drawn, whichever is less.

In addition to payment of this ex-gratia gratuity, a severance allowance with a maximum limit of Rs. 30,000/- was also paid.

2. Having come to know that they have not been paid their gratuity in terms of the Gratuity Act, the private respondents had approached the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter called the Controlling Authority) claiming gratuity under the Gratuity Act. Condoning the delay in filing of their such claims, the Controlling Authority deciding the matter in favour of the employees found that claim of the employees had merit and additional payment with 10% interest, was ordered in each case.

3. Aggrieved with the said orders of the Controlling Authority passed on different dates in case of different claim petitions of the superannuated employees, the employer had preferred separate appeals before the Appellate Authority-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh-respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called the Appellate Authority). Rejecting plea of the employer that the employees were 'civil servants' and thus, were not covered under the Act, in all these cases, orders of the Controlling Authority were upheld. In these appeals, affirmation of the said orders of the Appellate Authority by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, is under challenge.

4. For convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from LPA No. 406 of 2009.

5. Claim of the appellant is that employee Darshan Ram, now represented by his legal representatives, was a civil servant and thus, was outside the purview of the Gratuity Act and could not have been granted benefit of gratuity under the said Act. Liability to pay additional amount of gratuity as ordered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 over and above the ex-gratia gratuity earlier paid by them, is questioned.

6. Citing Union of India and others v. Kameshwar Parsad, (1977) 11 SCC 650 it is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that holder of a civil post is not entitled to payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act and thus, the private respondents are not entitled for additional payment under the Gratuity Act, as was ordered by the Controlling Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. It is claimed that affirmation of these orders by the learned Single Bench of this Court is also against law.

7. It is alleged that all retrial benefits of the retiree Darshan Ram having been already paid, nothing more is due towards him and the Gratuity Act being not applicable, no further liability of the appellant exists.

8. Countering this version, claim of the private respondents is that neither Darshan Ram was holding a civil post nor was he a civil servant and thus, he having die