JUDGMENT 1. Heard on I.A. 2. This is an application made by appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 14.12.2005 passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 203/2005. 3. The limitation to file an appeal is 60 days as prescribed under the Act where as the delay in filing appeal is 132 days. In other words, the appeal is barred by limitation by 132 days as it is filed against the order dated 14.12.2005 on 15.7.2006. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 4. Heard Shri Jangid, learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, we find no merit in the application. 6. In the first place the delay of 132 days, which is about five months is totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of any sufficient ground. It is required to be made out under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Secondly, when the Act has given 60 days to file an appeal then there was absolutely no reason as to why the appellant waited for about 132 days to file an appeal. Thirdly, the appellant is not a rustic villager, who is not conversant with the legal intricacies of limitation issue prescribed under the Law of Limitation. On the other hand, the appellant being a State is quite aware of all relevant provisions relating to filing of appeals. It is advised by the office of Advocate General on day today basis. in our view, the usual ground taking relating to administrative sanction which caused delay in filing appeal does not appear to us to be bona fide because no department would take 132 days to decide as to whether appeal should be filed or nor against an order of Single Judge. That apart, no facts are pleaded in support of such allegations. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing appeal. There is thus no sufficient cause for filing the appeal late by 132 days. The application is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. That apart, no facts are pleaded in support of such allegations. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing appeal. There is thus no sufficient cause for filing the appeal late by 132 days. The application is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 8. That apart since the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is based on consent, the appeal itself is not maintainable. It would be amply clear from the order itself as reproduced infra: "The parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present petition is no more res Integra in view of the judgment passed in the case of Chandra Mohan Singh & 185 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2004 (3) WLC page-413 . I have also examined the record of the petition and I am satisfied that the controversy involved is squarely covered by the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chandra Mohan Singh (supra.) Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the case of Chandra Mohan Singh (supra). The fixing of the petitioner's pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 is declared illegal. The petitioner is declared entitled to get his pay fixed in the pay scale of 6500-10500. The respondents if have made any recovery from the petitioner then the amount so recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from today." 9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and that there was no consent on behalf of the respondent and rather it is based on consent on the parties, the appeal appears to be a misconceived and not tenable. 10. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as being barred by time and also on merits as not maintainable. The appeal, thus fails and is dismissed on both the grounds.Special appeal dismissed. *******