As per case facts, a deceased employee, who was a Lecturer, died in service. His wife sought gratuity, but it was denied because her husband had not formally opted for ... retirement at an advanced age. The High Court, however, allowed her claim, directing the payment of gratuity. The State of U.P. subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the heirs of a deceased employee are entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity if the employee died before exercising the option to retire at an enhanced age, particularly when the relevant government order allowing this option was issued *after* the employee's demise, thereby making it impossible for him to opt. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, ruling that since the employee died before the government order itself, he could not have exercised any option. The Court held that death-cum-retirement gratuity is a benevolent scheme that should extend to the heirs of the deceased employee, dismissing the State's appeal with costs.