ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. The present Civil Application is filed by the applicant praying to condone the delay of 23 days which has taken place in filing the Letters Patent Appeal

2. Learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya appearing for the applicant has contended that the even though the issue of one increment is no more res integra, the present appeal pertains to issue of arrears also and, therefore, the delay may be condoned. 3. Having perused the record, it appears that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1184 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 has also observed and decided the issue of arrears also. Therefore, the of arrears issue is no longer res integra. The relevant observations contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 since relevant are reproduced hereunder :-

“5. Thus, Patent the Appeal Judge in the issue and involved dealt with in by this Letters learned Single impugned judgment and order, is no longer res integra. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant was not in a position to dispute the position of law emanating from the above decision of the Supreme Court.

6. The benefits of revision of pay and pension including the payment of arrears arising because of the grant of increment as above, shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of service of this order.

7. The judgment and order of learned single Judge is eminently just, proper and legal. The meritless Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed. Direct service is permitted.”

4. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that this Court had also in similar circumstance has passed orders rejecting the registration of Letters Patent Appeal.

4.1. Ms. Archana Acharya, learned counsel appearing for applicant and Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State would also not dispute the fact of cognate Bench having passed orders under similar circumstances which is referred to herein-above. In the light of aforestated circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present application will be governed by the similar order as aforestated. Hence, we proceed to pass following order.

5. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya for the applicant and Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

6. While the captioned Civil Application is for condonation of delay of 23 days and in all ordinary circumstances the Court would have adverted to the aspect of condoning or otherwise of delay, since the papers of the Letters Patent Appeal itself were available along with the Civil Application, the subject matter and the issue involved in the impugned judgment of learned single Judge could be visited with by the Court with the help of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

7. The issue involved is about entitlement of the original petitioners who retired on 30th June of a particular year, to receive the increment falling due on 1st July, that is immediately the day next of retirement, which increment was relatable to the services rendered by the employee in the preceding year.

7.1. There is no gainsaying, that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Director (Admin. & HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P.Mundinamani & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 [SLP(C) No.9185 of 2020] dated 11.4.2023. Identical issue was decided by this Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara which was Letters Patent Appeal No.868 of 2021 dated 24.7.2022, holding in favour of the employee, entitling him to the increment.

7.2. As rightly observed by learned single Judge the said decision in Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra) stood confirmed by the Supreme Court in view of the decision in C.P.Mundinamani & Ors. (supra). Since the aforesaid is the position of law obtaining, the Court does not find any good reason to advert to the aspect of condoning delay.

8. Condoning delay will not serve any pu