Writ Appeal No.568 of 2011 04.11.2011 Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned panel lawyer for the appellants. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2011 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6441/2010 (s). Since the appeal is barred by limitation, an application [I.A.No.4401/11] seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the said application. On going through the averments made in the application, supported by affidavit of the officer-in-charge of the case we are of the view that the delay which is of 199 days has satisfactorily been explained. Accordingly, we allow the application and condone the delay. Heard on the question of admission. Briefly stated the respondent a retired Commercial Tax Inspector of the State Government filed a writ petition challenging the action of the appellants in refixation of his pay and recovering the excess amount of Rs.44,639/- paid to him from the amount of his gratuity. Admittedly, the respondent was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2009. The learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order only to the extent of recovery which was passed after retirement of the respondent employee placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana – (1994) 2 SCC 52 and Shyambabu Verma Vs. Union of India – (1994) 2 SCC 521. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The excess payment was made to the petitioner not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the writ Court is in consonance with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana – (1994) 2 SCC 52, Shyambabu Verma Vs. Union of India – (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Govt. of India and ors. - (2006) 11 SCC 709. As regards giving of undertaking by the writ petitioner a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. N.C.Jain Vs. District Treasury Officer and others decided on 19.04.2007 in Writ Appeal No.163/2006 has already held that giving of undertaking at the time of retirement is of no consequence. In the circumstances, the appellants ground about undertaking being given by the writ petitioner is of no merit. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere into the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge AM.