JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is presented on 12.4.2002. The Registry pointed out office objections. It is really shocking and surprising that Nagar Nigam, Jaipur has not paid Court Fee on the memo of this appeal as well as certified copy of the order of the learned Single Judge and Vakalatnama. The Director, Local Bodies Deptt., Government of Rajasthan is another appellant in the appeal but, it has filed this joint appeal, the Court Fee is to be paid by the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur as it is not exempted from payment thereof. 2. On Vakalatnama, apart from non-payment of the Court Fee Stamp of Rs. 2/-, the Advocates Welfare Stamp has also not been affixed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants do not dispute that the State Government is not exempted from affixing of the Advocates Welfare Stamp or Vakalatnama. 4. Apart from these objections, the appeal is barred by 89 days. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed but the appellants have not furnished any explanation whatsoever for this inordinate delay. 5. We have considered the matter on merits also and contained to observe and state that. the appellants are acting very harsh and cruely in the matter. The Nagar Nigam, Jaipur is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. In fact, after 74 Amendment in the Constitution, it is a constitutional authority; meaning thereby it has to adhere to and strictly to comply with and follow the constitutional mandate. It is not in dispute that respondent an employee of the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur retired from the services w.e.f 9.8.1989. He was low paid employee a Gadiwan. The Rajasthan Municipal Service (Pension) Rules, 1989 have been brought in force on 1.10.1987 and the respondent-employee admittedly retired from the service w.e.f 9.8.1989 and thus he could not have been denied this benefit only on the ground that there was some calculation mistake in his age. This Court in the case of Jamal Khan Bisavati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1996(2) RLR 542 , held that the Municipal employees who have retired before 1.10.1987 are also entitled for the pensionary benefits. In SBCWP No. 288/1-989 decided on 26.2.1991, this Court had struck down the date of application of-the pensionary benefits from prospective date for the Municipal employees as being arbitrary. 7. In SBCWP No. 288/1-989 decided on 26.2.1991, this Court had struck down the date of application of-the pensionary benefits from prospective date for the Municipal employees as being arbitrary. 7. As the appellants have no case on merits and thus, no useful purpose otherwise also will be served to condone this inordinate delay of 89 days in filing of the appeal.The appeal fails and same dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******