ORAL ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. All these applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been preferred by the common applicant - original respondent - Dhoraji Nagarpalika requesting to condone the huge delay of 254 days in preferring the respective Letters Patent Appeals against the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6480/2001 and other allied Special Civil Applications dated 01/07/2016 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the Special Civil Applications and has directed the applicant - Dhoraji Nagarpalika to calculate the amount of interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits and other benefits at the rate of 10% per annum. 2. We have heard Shri. Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the some of the original petitioners and Shri. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the averments made in the applications, we are of the opinion that the huge delay of 254 days has not been sufficiently and properly explained. There is no explanation whatsoever and/or no sufficient explanation for the period between 27/10/2016 to 27/03/2017 till the Appeals are preferred. It is also required to be noted that even the certified copy of the impugned common judgment and order was applied on 29/03/2017 i.e. beyond the period of limitation prescribed for preferring the Appeals. Under the circumstances, when the huge delay of 254 days has not been sufficiently and properly explained, all these applications for condonation of delay deserve to be dismissed. 4. Even otherwise, considering the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid petitions by directing the applicant - Nagarpalika to pay the retirement benefits and other benefits like EPF, gratuity etc. with 10% interest and the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned common judgment and order, we are of the opinion that as such the applicant - Nagarpalika ought not to have preferred the Letters Patent Appeal. It is also required to be noted that the concerned employees were retired employees. Even as observed in the earlier order huge amount of Rs. 3,57,65,317/-, which was accumulated in the EPF, was in fact misapplied by the applicant - Nagarpalika earlier. It is also required to be noted that the concerned employees were retired employees. Even as observed in the earlier order huge amount of Rs. 3,57,65,317/-, which was accumulated in the EPF, was in fact misapplied by the applicant - Nagarpalika earlier. The liability to pay the retirement benefits was not disputed. In the earlier round of litigation even strong observations were made against the Nagarpalika with respect to misapplication of fund and not making it when due and payable to the concerned employees. Under the circumstances, when the entitlement of retirement benefits and other benefits were not disputed, which was paid belatedly for which the concerned retired employees suffered and the retirement dues like EPF, gratuity, difference of 5th Pay Commission etc. which were paid much belatedly and thereafter when the learned Single Judge has awarded the interest at the rate of 10% on delayed payment of retirement benefits like gratuity, EPF, difference of 5th Pay Commission, benefits of EL etc, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. Financial constrain alone cannot be said to be a valid ground not to saddle with the liability of paying interest, more particularly, when there was no justification at all on the part of the Nagarpalika in not paying the retirement dues and other benefits to the concerned retired employees and more particularly, when in fact at one point of time the Nagarpalika misapplied the huge sum, which was accumulated towards the EPF i.e. Rs. 3,57,65,317/-. 5. As observed hereinabove, no sufficient cause has been shown explaining the huge delay of 254 days. At this stage, it is required to be noted that some of the original petitioners have retired and some have expired and though sufficient time has been given i.e. six months, no steps are taken by the Nagarpalika to bring the heirs of some of the original petitioners. Considering the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, all these applications for condonation of delay requesting to condone the huge delay of 254 days deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Civil Applications for condonation of delay, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) Nos.705/2017 to 721/2017 with Civil Application (Stamp) Nos.4748/2017 to 4764/2017 deserve to be dismissed on the ground of limitation and are accordingly dismissed.