JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal is filed under Rule 2(2) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules by the respondents of W.P.(C) No.2076 of 2013 against the order dated 14.08.2013 passed in the aforesaid writ petition by the learned Single Judge. Heard on Misc. Case No. 482 of 2014. This is an application filed by the applicants/appellants (State) under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning of delay in filing appeal. According to the appellants, the delay in filing appeal is of 95 days. The question therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal or not? Notice of this application was served on the respondents. In our opinion, the delay of 95 days is totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of any sufficient cause, which is required to be made out under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, when the Act has given 60 days to file an appeal then there is absolutely no reason as to why the appellants waited for 95 days to file an appeal. Thirdly, the appellants are not rustic villagers, who are usually not conversant with the legal intricacies of limitation prescribed under the Law of Limitation. On the other hand, the appellants being State is always advised by the office of Advocate General on day today basis in the matter of filing cases in Courts. In our view, the usual ground that administrative sanction was not granted due to which, delay in filing appeals was caused, does not appear to us to be bonafide cause, because, no department would take 95 days to decide as to whether appeal should be filed or not against an order of Single Judge. That apart, neither proper facts are pleaded nor any documents are filed in support of such allegations, except usual averments. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application i.e. Misc. Case No.482 of 2014 is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being barred by time. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application i.e. Misc. Case No.482 of 2014 is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being barred by time. Since the appeal is being dismissed as barred by time, hence, it is not necessary for us to examine the controversy involved in appeal on merits. Even then, we perused the impugned order with a view to find out as to whether any case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners and directed to grant relief to them, which they had claimed in the writ petition. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: - “13. Admittedly, the recoveries were made after the petitioners retired from service and from their retirement dues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 , which was a case of recovery of salary paid in excess, held that since the petitioners had rendered services and had received the higher pay scale due to no fault of theirs, it would only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which had already been paid to them. Accordingly, it was directed that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same. 14. In the present case also, respondents have not been able to place any materials on record to show that fixation of pay at Rs. 566.00 per month in respect of the petitioners w.e.f. July, 1981 was erroneous or was fixed on the basis of incorrect principles. As noticed above, the recoveries were made after retirement of the petitioners. No notice or hearing was given to the petitioners before such deductions. 15. That being the position, the petition deserves to be allowed. The deduction made by the respondents from the retirement dues of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 16. As noticed above, the recoveries were made after retirement of the petitioners. No notice or hearing was given to the petitioners before such deductions. 15. That being the position, the petition deserves to be allowed. The deduction made by the respondents from the retirement dues of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 16. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the respondents, more particularly the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Assam, shall examine the case of each of the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate order(s) for re-fund of the amounts deducted from the retirement dues of the petitioners. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. Writ petition is disposed of.” Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant fairly brought to our notice that the issue involved in this appeal is largely covered by the several decisions of the Supreme Court against the appellant such as (1) (2005)3 SCC 501 [ Ram Dayal Rai vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others), (2) (2009) 3 SCC 475 [ Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others], (3) (2010)1 SCC 440 [Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and others vs. Israil Khan and others]. We have also examined the issue involved in this appeal in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases cited at the bar and we are also inclined to accept the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue involved in the appeal is concerned against the appellant in the light of law laid down in these decisions. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit in the appeal which fails and is dismissed not only on the ground of limitation but also on merits in limini. No costs.