JUDGMENT : 1. The instant special appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 21.11.2016 and so also the order passed in review application dated 24.05.2017. 2. Office has pointed out delay of 275 days in filing of the appeal & separate application in support thereof has been filed u.Sec.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. 3. It is stated that after passing of the order by the ld. Single Judge dt. 21.11.2016, the appellant was advised to file a review application and without any loss of time, review application was filed which also came to be dismissed on 24.05.2017 and immediately thereafter the present appeal has been preferred. 4. After taking note of the submissions made, we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained duly supported by the affidavit and deserves to be condoned. 5. Accordingly, application seeking condonation of delay u/S 5 of Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay is condoned. 6. The appellant-petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.07.2002 & all terminal benefits were paid to him after due adjustment of alleged outstanding dues. Certain correspondences were made by the appellant disputing the outstanding dues which the respondent authorities have adjusted from the gratuity payable to the appellant under the Rules. Finally, the respondents have not responded to his request, a legal notice was served followed thereto the writ petition came to be filed. 7. After notices of the writ petition came to be served, reply was filed by the respondents giving complete details of the outstanding dues which have been adjusted from the terminal benefits of the appellant and before this Court also reply to the appeal has been filed and in para 4 (C) details have been furnished of the sanctioned amount which was disbursed to the appellant and adjusted by the respondent from the terminal benefits released to him at the time of retirement from service. 8. It is not the case of the appellant that the outstanding dues which has been adjusted from the terminal benefits is not legally permissible for adjustment under the law. Ld. Single Judge, after considering the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that what has been submitted by the appellant is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Ld. Single Judge, after considering the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that what has been submitted by the appellant is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we are of the view that even if any dispute exist and can be resolved from the documentary evidence is always open for scrutiny U/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the retiree may not ordinarily be relegated to approach the civil court for the reason that the retrial dues are the lawful & legitimate claim of the retiree. 10. After we have heard counsel for the parties and from the details which has come on record, we are satisfied that there were outstanding dues towards housing loan and other dues which has been adjusted from the terminal benefits of the appellant payable at the time of retirement and that is permissible under the law. We find no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed.