Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24337-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 172 of 2025 Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Distt. Ambedkar Nagar And Another Respondent :- Shabiha Bano And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (C. M. Application No.1 of 2025-Application for condonation of delay) Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Shubham Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Anupma Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. There is delay of about 463 days in filing the instant appeal. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. Learned State Counsel representing the respondents does not have any objection, if delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is satisfactory and in absence of any objection, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. (Order on Appeal) The present intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the writ court in Writ A No.9766 of 2023 "Shabiha Bano vs. State of U.P. and others", whereby, the payment of gratuity in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act has been allowed in favour of respondent no.1 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of death of the deceased employee. Admittedly, the death of the deceased employee occurred much before attaining the age of 60 years. Whether such an employee had exercised the option for being retained in service upto the age of 62 years or not would be immaterial for grant of the benefit of gratuity. The submission put forth by learned counsel for the appellant is that the payment of gratuity would have been admissible to the deceased employee only if he had exercised the option for being retained in service upto attaining the age of 60 years and not otherwise. The failure to exercise any such option, therefore, would dis-entitle the deceased employee for payment of gratuity, inasmuch as, the age of retirement in that case would be 62 years and not less. The submission put forth by learned counsel for the appellant is fallacious. Once natural death has occurred before attaining the age of 60 years, the question of exercising the option becomes meaningless. The writ court, having appreciated the submissions in the light of statutory provisions, has rightly allowed the claim from the date of death as per the mandate of the statute. The reasoning and directions issued by the writ court, in our humble consideration, do not suffer from any illegality calling for interference. The writ Court, while deciding the grievance raised by the respondent no.1 in the earlier Writ Petition No.5349 of 2021, had already issued specific directions on 25.03.2021 to the effect that while considering the representation of the respondent, her claim shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not exercised his option. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (A. K. Srivastava-I,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Mahesh Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench