Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65641-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (Sl No.64) Court No. - 21 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 858 of 2024 Appellant :- State Of Up And 3 Others Respondent :- Vinod Kapoor And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Jata Shankar Pandey Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2021 in Writ (A) No. 54335 of 2014 (Vinod Kapoor vs. State of U.P. and 03 Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent Vinod Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as 'the retired employee/employee) was allowed and the orders impugned therein dated 22.06.2013 and 10.07.2014 were quashed. 2. The brief facts are that the employee was appointed as Homeopathy Compounder on 24.05.1976. He took voluntary retirement on 30.06.2012. Almost a year after his retirement i.e., on 22.06.2013 an order of re-fixation of pay-scale was passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner holding the employee not entitled to the pay-scale of trained Pharmacist. The earlier pay fixation order passed on 05.01.1993 was revoked. The representation of the petitioner against the same was rejected by order dated 10.07.2014. As a result, the salary of the petitioner was reduced since 1986. The Assistant Labour Commissioner was directed to recover the differential amount since 01.01.1986. The orders were assailed by the employee in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has held that at the time of appointment the employee possessed the required qualification. It was several years after, by means of a Government Order dated 12.11.1991, experience of two years was prescribed. It has been held that since the appointment was of a prior date and consequently the Government order would not apply. Additionally, learned Single Judge relying upon judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) : 2015 (4) SCC 334, held that the recovery directed against the employee would be illegal and quashed the orders impugned in the writ petition. 3. It is an admitted fact that during pendency of the writ petition the employee, Vinod kapoor died and was substituted by his widow, namely Suman Kapoor. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, in the operative part of the order, has also directed for release of the sum due and payable to the widow within three months. 4. It seems that thereafter the State did not comply with the orders passed by learned Single Judge and therefore, the widow was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants complied with the directions relating to payment to the widow as contained in the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Now, the instant appeal has been filed with delay of 1142 days. 6. The only explanation given in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is that it took considerable time to obtain legal opinion from different officials as well as from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. 7. This in our opinion is not at all the sufficient to condone inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The matter related to payment of arrears and other benefits to the widow of the retired employee. Admittedly, after the contempt was initiated, the State proceeded to comply with the directions relating to the payment of arrears to the widow. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the gross delay we are not inclined to condone the same at this distance in time. 9. The delay condonation application is rejected. As a result, the appeal also stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad