JUDGMENT 1. The State appeal is barred by limitation of 171 days. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of Shri Nathu Lal Verma District Education Officer, Jodhpur. It is averred that the certified copy of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.9.2002 was received on 28.9.2002, It was sent to the Director s of Education on 1.10.2002. The opinion was sought from the learned counsel and the same was given on 31.102002. Learned counsel expressed the opinion that it was not a fit case for filing the special appeal. Thereafter, the matter was examined at various levels and ultimately decision was taken at late in the month of March, 2003 for filing the special appeal. At this stage, it may be stated that limitation for filing special appeal is 30 days and the file has been moving unmindful of this fact. Thus, we are not satisfied that there existed any good reason for not filing the special appeal within limitation. 2. Be that as it may, the respondent Smt. Asha Choudhary, retired from the service on attaining the superannuation age on 31.12.1996. She is approached to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal seeking direction for payment of gratuity. The State did not prefer to file a reply before the Tribunal. By order dated 15.5.1998, the Tribunal directed the department to make payment of gratuity to the respondent within 60 days with interest at the rate of 12%. The State challenged the said order by way of writ petition. It is contended that there was an enquiry pending against the respondent. It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that on the day the Tribunal passed the order, there was no enquiry pending against the respondent. Order to sanction the initiation of proceedings under Rule 170 was passed on 19.12.1999. It is surprising that the respondent has retired as back as in the year 1996 still her gratuity has not been paid. On a review application the Tribunal see guarded the interest of State by directing the payment of gratuity on furnishing a bank guarantee or solvent security for refund of the amount. We fail to understand any justification for the State for filing this special appeal.We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. On a review application the Tribunal see guarded the interest of State by directing the payment of gratuity on furnishing a bank guarantee or solvent security for refund of the amount. We fail to understand any justification for the State for filing this special appeal.We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. The special appeal is also rejected on merits.Appeal with Application for Condonation Dismissed. *******