The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not entertain appeals seeking to re-open decided matters without pointing out any illegality or infirmity in the previous orders.

JUDGMENT :

(1) Heard Sri Amitabh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State Authorities/appellants/applicants and Sri Ashutosh Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner.

(2) This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is delayed by one day.

(3) The appeal is accompanied with the application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit.

(4) Since sufficient cause has been shown by the learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has no objection, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(5) Let the appeal be assigned a regular number.

Order on the appeal

(6) The instant Special Appeal has been filed by the State assailing the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading Writ-A No.200222 of 2015, Kuldeep Kumar and 100 others v. State of U.P. and others. The bunch State of U.P. and others v. Satya Prakash Gupta also included the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner, i.e., Writ-A No. 23634 of 2017. The appeal has also sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 197 of 2023 arising out of the above common judgment.

(7) The operative portion of the impugned common judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 reads as under:-

“14. In view of the aforesaid position, I see no reason as to how the petitioners can be discriminated when the controversy has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court and Special Leave Petition against the said judgment has been dismissed. Not only that, even subsequently, this Court has given benefit to other employees by the judgment passed by a Division of Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.17859 of 2016. The State has fairly submitted before this Court that the case of persons who were similarly situated to the petitioners would be governed by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kanojia versus State of U.P. and others.

15. At this stage, it is relevant to quote the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kanojia versus State of U.P. and others as under:

"In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the opposite parties have wrongly denied the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.37400 to 67000 with Grade Pay of Rs. 8700 which is the only pay scale of the post of Superintending Engineer. After the up-gradation of pay scale there is only one pay scale of the post of Superintending Engineer which is 37400 to 67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8700 and the petitioners being the Superintending Engineers are entitled to get this pay scale.

In view of the Government Order dated 04.05.2010 both the writ petitions succeed.

State of U.P. and others v. Satya Prakash Gupta

Both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.01.2013 as contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition No. 236 (SB) of 2013 and the Government Order dated 14.02.2013 as contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition No. 1440 (SB) of 2013, are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to make payment of salary to the petitioners in Pay Band-IV with grade pay of Rs. 8700 with effect from the date they are found eligible alongwith the arrears, if any, within three months."

16. For the reason aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners is duly covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kanojia (supra). The petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit which has been given to the petitioners by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, the writ petitions are allowed and the Government Order dated 10.04.2015, reference of which has been given above is hereby quashed, so far as it says that the petiti