Judgment: Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. Order-dated 26.10.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; whereby, an order-dated 30.7.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority holding respondent entitle for an amount of Rs. 1,80,359/- was affirmed. 3. Employed with the petitioner, respondent no. 1, on his retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2004, filed a claim under Section 7 of 1972 Act before the Controlling Authority for gratuity for the entire period of service i.e. 36 years 3 months and 7 days, claiming that though entitled for Rs. 3,08,111/-, he has been granted only Rs. 2,44,778/- and Rs. 39,244/- has wrongly been deducted towards penal rent. Petitioner contested the claim on the ground that respondent-workman, being governed by departmental Rules, has been given the dues as per his entitlement. 4. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 30.7.2012 found the workman entitled for Rs. 63,333/- towards gratuity plus Rs. 39,244/- towards penal rent deducted from gratuity and Rs. 77,782/- towards interest on unpaid gratuity @ 10% from the date of retirement till realization. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by impugned order. 5. Petitioner assails the order on the ground that the application filed by the respondent no. 1 on 17.11.2006 was after two years of his retirement (i.e. 31.12.2004) was time barred and that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are not applicable to the petitioner. 6. As to contention that the belated claim ought not to have been entertained, the issue is no more res integra and has been decided in Mohanlal S/o Nanno Mal vs. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Ors., 1991 M.P.L.J. 355, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held- We revert to the other ground which prevailed with the Appellate Authority in holding that the claim petition was not maintainable because application filed with the employer by the employee under Rule 7(1) was time barred. That has a short and also a long answer. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 effectively rebuffs that contention. It provides that on the sole ground that gratuity was claimed late and application was not made within specified period to the employer the claim shall not be treated invalid. That has a short and also a long answer. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 effectively rebuffs that contention. It provides that on the sole ground that gratuity was claimed late and application was not made within specified period to the employer the claim shall not be treated invalid. However, the same provision also contemplates that if there is any dispute and if there is any controversy in regard to belated application that shall be resolved by the Controlling Authority. Evidently, for the first time in appeal, the ground was urged to deprive the Controlling Authority of its jurisdiction envisaged under Rule 7(5) to deal and decide the controversy. That apart, it has been rightly urged by Shri Lahoti, appearing for the petitioner/employee, that neither Section 7(1) nor Rule 7(1) is mandatory. That is made clear not only by Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7, but by the other parts of the parent provisions contained in Section 7. Sub-section (2) makes it employer's duty to determine the amount of gratuity and to give notice in writing to the employee of the gratuity payable "whether an application referred to in Sub-section (1) has been made or not". Sub-section (3) obligates the employer to arrange payment of the gratuity within the time prescribed and by Sub-rule (4) he is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him against gratuity. It is noteworthy that neither Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) nor the explanation appended to it prescribes any period of limitation for making application to the Controlling Authority for deciding dispute of nonpayment of gratuity. 7. In respect of contention as to non-applicability of provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitioner has failed to bring on record the notification issued under Section 5, exempting the petitioner-employer from applicability of provisions of 1972 Act and since the provisions of 1972 Act are more beneficial, the Controlling Authority, in the considered opinion of this Court, did not faulter in allowing the application filed by respondent-workman. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court in Chief Engineer, MPSEB, Gwalior vs. Radheshyam Goyal : Writ Petition No. 5618/2007(s) decided on 19.11.2008 has held- 5. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court in Chief Engineer, MPSEB, Gwalior vs. Radheshyam Goyal : Writ Petition No. 5618/2007(s) decided on 19.11.2008 has held- 5. After having heard at length to the counsel for the parties and going through the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. Section 14of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 overrides the provisions of other enactments. Under sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act, there is a right available for the employee to opt for better terminal gratuity is more beneficial. The payment of gratuity is more beneficial under the Gratuity Act has been concurrently found on facts. Thus, in our opinion, the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority are proper. 6. The petitioner counsel was unable to point out any provision in pension rules that in case gratuity is availed under the Payment of Gratuity Act benefit of pension would not be available. The petitioner's counsel has relied on DTC Refined Employees' Association (supra); it was a case with regard to the applicability of the Pension Scheme and applicability of Provident Fund Scheme. In that pension scheme was required to be accepted using the option within the specified time which is not the case of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further relied on EID Parry (I) Ltd. (supra) in which the provision of A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1996 was found to be more beneficial as compared to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Here, position is contrary. 8. Having thus considered, no interference is caused with the impugned order. 9. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. However, no costs.