Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32594-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 192 of 2025 Appellant :- Poornima Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Sudarshan Singh Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2025: 1. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the Special Appeal. 2. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of limitation. 3. The application is, accordingly, allowed. The delay in filing the Special Appeal is, therefore, condoned. Order on the Memo of Appeal: 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 5. The appellants-petitioners had filed a writ petition being Writ-A 16243 of 2008 with the following prayers :- (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary/honorarium to the petitioners w.e.f. June, 2005 till date along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (b) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner the difference at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month of the salary/honorarium w.e.f. February, 2004 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANADAMUS commanding the respondent to disburse monthly salary/honorarium to the petitioners falling due month by month." 6. This writ petition when it was entertained, a counter affidavit was also filed and it had been stated therein that the petitioners had accepted their salaries @ of Rs.3000/- per month and they had never raised any grievance with regard to the amount of salary. In the counter affidavit it had further been stated that since the project was sanctioned only for the tenth Five Year Plan which came to an end on 31.3.2007, the Central Government had thereafter washed its hands off from the project under which the petitioners were working. It had also been stated in the counter affidavit that if any work had been taken after 31.3.2007, then the payments had to be made by the State Government. 7. When the writ petition was decided, there was a categorical direction to the petitioners to take whatever amount was due to them from the State Government as the Central Government had washed its hands off from the project on 31.3.2007 itself. The order impugned dated 22.11.2024 had itself directed the petitioners to make an application before the competent State Authority for the redressal of their grievances. 8. Under such circumstances, no further order/direction is required. The petitioners, if are still aggrieved with the non-payment of any amount after the project had come to an end, they may approach the competent State Authority as was directed by the order dated 22.11.2024 in Writ-A No.16243 of 2008. 9. We find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2024. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 GS (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad