3.According to the petitioner, after the lapse of 2 years, the third respondent has alleged that he was working as 'Pattiyal Clerk Trainee' from 01.08.1992 and confirmed on 22.05.1990 and retired from service on 31.03.2015. Hence, he claimed the difference in amount of gratuity with delay condonation petition before the second respondent and the same was numbered as P.G.I.A.No.111/2016. According the petitioner, they disputed the service duration of the third respondent and also objected the condone delay petition. According to the petitioner, the condone delay petition filed by the third respondent was allowed without any valid reason and the main case was numbered as P.G.No.67/2016. According to the petitioner, in the main case, a counter was also filed and the petitioner categorically denied the length of service of the third respondent. By order dated 20.11.2017, in P.G.No.67/2016, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.74,523/-, being the difference in the gratuity amount to the third respondent. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2017, an appeal was filed before the first respondent by the petitioner in P.G. Appeal No.32/2018. The first respondent dismissed the appeal on 17.10.2018, and confirmed the order of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the authorities below, the instant writ petition has been filed.
