JUDGMENT Ref: Delay Condonation Application For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing Special Appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others are before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11920 of 2016 (Ram Sharan Niranjan Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to disapprove the action of the appellant respondents in deducting a sum of Rs. 46,779/- from the gratuity amount of respondent petitioner and has commanded the appellant respondents to ensure the payment in question. From the side of the appellant respondents it is being contended before this Court that the liability in question has been fastened upon the respondent petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the District Consumer Forum on 4.1.2007 and, in view of this, the amount in question, that was due, has been deducted from the gratuity amount and there has been no infirmity in the decision, so taken, and learned Single Judge has grossly misdirected himself at the point of time when writ petition, preferred by the respondent petitioner, has been allowed. Sri Ram Surat Patel, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that respondent petitioner stood transferred in the year 2002 and at no point of time he has ever been aware of the ex-parte order dated 4.1.2007 of the District Consumer Forum and after his retirement such an exercise has been undertaken, in view of this, the opinion that has been expressed by the learned Single Judge is a rightful opinion and same warrants no interference by this special appeal Bench. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation that is so emerging is that from 26.6.1997 to 15.2.2002 respondent petitioner was posted at Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur as Mandi Sachiv and during his service period at District Hamirpur one Bashiruddin had filed case no. 15 of 2000 before the District Consumer Forum against the Senior Clerk, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur and three others including the Mandi Sachiv. 15 of 2000 before the District Consumer Forum against the Senior Clerk, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur and three others including the Mandi Sachiv. This much is also reflected that while said proceedings have been initiated respondent petitioner has been transferred from the aforementioned Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and this much is also reflected from the record in question that District Consumer Forum, Hamirpur on 4.1.2007 has allowed the case of Bashiruddin and directives were issued to pay compensation of Rs. 83,700/-. Respondent petitioner has contended that as far as he is concerned, at no point of time, he has ever participated in the said enquiry and the reason is obvious that he stood transferred and it has also been mentioned that award in question has been passed against Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur, at no point of time, after award in question has been served, ever proceeded to question the validity of the same and acquiesced to the same. Respondent petitioner has contended that as far as he is concerned, he attained his age of superannuation in the year 2011 and, thereafter, at the point of time when his gratuity amount was to be sanctioned such a deduction has been made. Once from the record in question this much is reflected that entire proceedings, that have been so undertaken, is against the appellant respondents and was relatable to the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur and at no point of time Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur ever proceeded to question the validity of the same even after acquiring knowledge of the same and in the garb of the same after attaining the age of superannuation recovery has been sought to be effectuated and learned Single Judge is right, at the point of time, when he has proceeded to make a statement that after attaining the age of superannuation without fixing the specific liability on the petitioner such an order could not have been passed, as has been done in the present case. The said factual situation that has been noted by the learned Single Judge that after respondent petitioner has attained his age of superannuation and the provisions of Article 351-A of CCA Rules are not at all applicable vis.a.vis. The said factual situation that has been noted by the learned Single Judge that after respondent petitioner has attained his age of superannuation and the provisions of Article 351-A of CCA Rules are not at all applicable vis.a.vis. an employee of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Maudaha, District Hamirpur, then the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not warrants any interference by us. Special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.