HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 437 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (Order on C.M.Application No.1 of 2025; Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. After hearing the parties what comes out is that against a similar judgment involving similar issue pertaining to grant of minimum of the payscale, a belated Special Appeal Defective No.317 of 2025 was filed by the State which was dismissed on 04.08.2025 after condoning the delay in the following terms:- "Order on C. M. Application No. 1 of 2025 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Heard. 3. The cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. 4. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mohd. Ateeq Khan State Of U.P Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Civil Sectt. Lko.And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) Ashish Kumar .....Respondent(s) Order on Special Appeal 5. After arguing the matter for some time, the appellant's counsel was confronted with the judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.597 of 2024; State of U.P. and 2 ors. vs. Santosh Kumar, by which the appeal of the appellant against the judgment of the writ court passed in Writ A No. 9722 of 2023; Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and ors., involving similar issue has been rejected, and the fact that in Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and ors., the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 16323 (S/S) of 2017 in re: Ramesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and ors. was relied upon and against it a Special Leave Petition was filed which was dismissed, and as it is the said judgment which has been relied by the learned Single Judge, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has fairly accepted the aforesaid facts. 6. For the reasons already given in the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 11.11.2024, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2024 in this intra-court appeal. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed." 4. Counsel for the respondent has no objection to the delay being condoned. The cause shown and the explanation offered in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay are sufficient and accepted. The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal. (Order on Memo of Special Appeal) For the reasons already mentioned in the abovequoted judgment, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. November 13, 2025 -Piyush- SPLAD No. 437 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench