ORAL ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicants herein requesting to condone the huge delay of 291 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there is a huge delay of 291 days, which has not been sufficiently and properly explained. Under the circumstances, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 , present application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. Even otherwise, we have heard Shri. Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants to satisfy ourselves whether prima facie there is any merit in the Appeal. 3. Having heard Shri. Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that by the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment of retirement benefits for the period between 01/12/2005 till the actual date of payment, which in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be erroneous. It is required to be noted that for the alleged misconduct, which had happened six years back, charge-sheet was issued against the employee at the fag end of his service career, more particularly, on the last date of his retirement and when subsequently the same came to be dropped, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has observed that there was no valid reason for the department not to make the retirement benefits, and therefore, considering the circular issued by the Government, the learned Single Judge has issued the interest at the rate 6% per annum, which cannot be said to be erroneous. Under the circumstances, even the Appeal lacks merits. In any case, as observed hereinabove, huge delay of 291 days has not been sufficiently and properly explained. Hence, the present application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances, even the Appeal lacks merits. In any case, as observed hereinabove, huge delay of 291 days has not been sufficiently and properly explained. Hence, the present application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.2344/2017 and Civil Application (Stamp) No. 14647/2017 therein also deserve to be dismissed on the ground of limitation and they are dismissed on the ground of limitation.