JUDGMENT

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

These LPAs as detailed in the head note, have been preferred by the appellant-State of Haryana, Department of Education, being aggrieved against the common judgment dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions:- (1) CWP-19988-2011 Ram Rattan and others v. State of Haryana and others (2) CWP-16586-2012 Subhash Chander Aggarwal v. GJU of SC & TECH & others (3) CWP- 4293-2015 Devender Sachdeva and others v. State of Haryana and others (4) CWP-12624-2015 Brij Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others (5) CWP-18488-2015 Manoj Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (6) CWP-19370-2015 Phool Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (7) CWP-20353-2015 Mohinder Singh Malik and others v. State of Haryana and others (8) CWP-21145-2015 Rajinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (9) CWP-245-2016 Mahipal Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others (10) CWP-6833-2016 Saroj Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others.

2. The petitioners sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20.03.2013 (Annexure P-7 in CWP20353-2015) whereby, grade pay of Rs.3200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been granted after withdrawing the grade pay of Rs.3600/- and order dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure P-10 in CWP-20353-2015) vide which letter dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure P-9 in CWP-20353-2015) granting the revision of Grade Pay from Rs.3200/- to Rs.3600/- to the Assistants working in the State Universities including respondent Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been withdrawn.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the writ petitions were allowed and impugned orders dated 20.03.2013, 05.09.2014 and 29.09.2014 (Annexures P-7, P-9 and P-10 in CWP-20353-2015) were quashed.

4. As there was delay in filing of all these LPAs, so it has been sought to be condoned by moving an application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, in each appeal. It has been averred in these applications that there was no intentional delay or latches on the part of the applicants rather the delay whatsoever has occurred, is procedural and to explain the same certain dates have been mentioned in these applications which are being reproduced in a tabular form in Annexure A-1 attached with this judgment and the same be read as its part and parcel.

5. After taking us through the grounds mentioned in the applications, it has been submitted by counsel for the appellant that the delay in filing of these LPAs may be condoned as the same was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the lengthy departmental procedure.

6. The applications have been opposed by filing the written reply by the writ petitioners in LPA-301-2020, LPA-209-2021 and LPA-195- 2021.

7. It has been alleged in the reply that the department took no steps to apply for certified copy of the impugned judgment within the limitation period. It has been further averred that the entire approach of the department was just casual; after expiry of limitation period the rights of the petitioners/respondents have attained finality and the applicant/department cannot be allowed to take the benefit of its own wrong, in filing the appeal with such a long delay.

8. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd and another, reported in 2012 (2) S.C.T, 269 SC; State of Haryana and others v. Neelam Rani and other