Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition in question has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by the Registrar of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi informing the petitioner that no amount whatsoever is admissible to him and entire amount as was liable to be paid, already stands paid to petitioner.

2. Petitioner was working on the post of Senior Office Superintendent in the University concerned and disciplinary proceedings had been undertaken against him and an order of compulsory retirement was passed. Petitioner had proceeded to question the validity of the same by preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17910 of 2005 and the said writ petition in question was allowed on 18.10.2005 leaving it open to the University to impose any of the punishment permissible under Statute 2.6 (2), if petitioner was found guilty of any of the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. Petitioner submits that he had retired from service on 30th April, 2006 and on his retirement he became entitle for gratuity, leave encashment and other post retrial benefits. Petitioner had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58008 of 2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 21st July, 2008 directing the respondents to take final decision regarding payment of gratuity, leave encashment and of providing Form 16 to petitioner. Against the said order in question, petitioner has preferred Special Appeal No. 1377 of 2008 wherein an interim order was passed directing the authorities concerned to make aforesaid payment or show-cause.

3. In the said special appeal counter-affidavit has been filed informing that Form 16 has been delivered to petitioner and the payment of leave encashment has already been made and the claim of petitioner for gratuity has been rejected by the order dated 4th September, 2008, the order impugned in the present writ petition. Thereafter, Special Appeal No. 1377 of 2008 has been dismissed by this Court on 25th March, 2011 without going into the merits of the said appeal. Petitioner, thereafter, filed review application and the same has been dismissed on 13th May, 2011 with an observation that if any order has been passed regarding the rejection of the claim of petitioner, it would be open to petitioner to take legal proceedings against the same. Petitioner, thereafter, is before this Court contending therein that his claim for gratuity has wrongly been turned down and under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 he is entitled for gratuity.

4. Claim of petitioner has been resisted by the University concerned by contending that employee has been defined under Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and as petitioner has been an employee of the University, he is not at all governed by the provisions of the aforementioned act as he has been holding the post under the State Government and was being governed by other rules for payment of gratuity and further petitioner has accepted the said benefits without any reservation and as such no relief or reprieve should be given to petitioner.

5. Supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed appending therein a copy of the Government Order dated 18th November, 2004 wherein provision has been made for attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years with gratuity benefits.

6. By means of rejoinder-affidavit the averments made on behalf of University has been rebutted and it has been reiterated that the said Government Order only provides two different options of payment of certain retirement benefits for the employee already employed and the said Government Order nowhere exempts the employees from the applicability of the Act of 1972, as Act of 1972 would prevail over the same.

7. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of parties.

8. Shri Gulrej Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted