The court condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal to maintain uniformity in applying a Supreme Court order regarding employee increments.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 428 days in filing the captioned appeal.

2. At the outset, learned AGP has submitted that in various appeals after condoning the delay of similar nature, the appeals are disposed of in light of the order of the Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023. She has submitted that in most of the matters, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties had consented for condoning the delay and ultimately, had agreed that the order may be passed in the present appeals in light of the order passed by the Supreme Court. She has also submitted that in fact, the entire issue was before the Supreme Court and thereafter, in view of dismissal of some of the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State, the policy was also framed by the State Government regulating the issue of grant of one increment. She has submitted that ultimately, when the Supreme Court has clarified in the order dated 11.04.2023 relating to grant of one increment to the employees similarly situated to the opponent, the Litigation Committee, which was formed by the State Government, had undertaken necessary exercise to see that the Letters Patent Appeals are filed. She has referred to the averments made in the application and also referred to the time line of the litigation before this Court. Thus, it is urged that delay may be condoned and the same order may be passed as was passed by this Court in various other group of matters.

3. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the opponents has vehemently opposed the present application seeking condonation of delay of more than 300 days. She has referred to the contents of the affidavit filed by the opponents and submitted that reliance upon order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Review being Misc. Application (Diary) No.2400 of 2024 in S.L.P. (C) No.4722 of 2021 is in fact, in favour of the cases like the present one, as it is clearly mentioned in Clause (b) that for persons, who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata. Learned advocate has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by Lrs and Others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), (2024) 4 S.C.R. 241, in support of the submission. Thus, it is urged that the delay may not be condoned.

4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

5. It is an established fact that there are various Writ Petitions filed by numerous employees after the judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10308 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021. It is also not in dispute that in various High Courts of the country, such issue about grant of one increment accruing on 1st July to its employees and who had retired on 30th June, was raised and examined by different High Courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani and Others, dated 11.04.2023, disposed of the Special Leave Petition on identical issue.

6. It appears that thereafter, a review application was filed before the Supreme Court on the very said judgment being Misc. Civil Application (Diary) No.2400 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4722 of 2021. By the order dated 06.09.2024, the Supreme Court again clarified with regard to entitlement of one increment to such employees who are similarly situated to the opponent.

7. The Supreme Court has held thus:-

“The issue raised in the present applications r