As noticed herein above, the trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have held that after the respondent joined the appellants, he was directed to deposit the gratuity received from the army and on his doing so, his pay was protected. The Courts below thereafter placed reliance upon the instructions Ex.D-1, to decree the suit and dismiss the appeal. The instructions Ex.D-1 provide that if an ex-serviceman deposits gratuity paid by army authorities with the civil authority, he would be entitled to count his military service for the purpose of calculating gratuity payable upon retirement from civil service. The submission made by counsel for the appellants that the instructions Ex.D-1, issued by the State were not adopted by the Board is entirely misplaced. The instructions have been led into evidence and relied upon by the Board and even otherwise, no such point was urged before the Courts below. There is, therefore, no warrant for the argument that instructions were not adopted by the Board. As a result, the findings recorded by the Courts below that the respondent is entitled to gratuity by counting his military service, does not call for any interference. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for
