Item 23 20.07.2026 Court. No. 11 (gc) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MAT 101 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Munshi Md. Salehin & Ors. Mr. Jagriti Mishra,Ld. AAAG Ms. Mrinmayee Das …for the Appellants. 1. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay of 816 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Upon perusing the explanations offered in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said application, we are not satisfied with the grounds taken for condonation of delay. 3. It is well-settled that, delay by the Government departments in preferring appeals on the plea that approvals from different authorities were awaited, can no longer be accepted as a good ground for condonation. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board reported at 2025 SCC Online 1969. 2 4. The plea that the appellants were waiting for authorization of the draft and had to incorporate suggested changes, which resulted in delay in filing the appeal, is not accepted by us. Moreover, the writ petition was contested by the appellants. In both the rounds of litigation, the appellants were unsuccessful, and as such, the explanation that sufficient time was consumed in obtaining the case records, also cannot be accepted. 5. Government authorities and State instrumentalities cannot claim condonation of delay as a matter of right of right. Delays at the bureaucratic level cannot be a valid ground for condonation. Although, Mr. Mishra submits that the merits of the case should be looked into, we are of the view that the appeal does not have any merit. 6. We find from the facts that this intra-court appeal arises out of an order dated August 2, 2023 passed in WPA 1175 of 2021. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed that arrear salary of the writ petitioner on and from June 23, 2001 to March 31, 2018 amounting to 3 Rs.16,43,399/- should be paid. Such payment was directed in compliance with an order dated August 27, 2018 passed in WP No.25608(W) of 2010. The order of 2010 is quoted below for ready reference:- “The writ petition is disposed of directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Cooch Behar to grant scale of pay to the petitioner taking into account his M.M. qualification on and from the last date of his examination i.e., 23rd June, 2001. The calculation to be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said respondent is directed to release all arrear payments within a period of 8 weeks thereafter and to release the current pay in accordance with his enhanced qualification as soon as the calculation is made.” 7. Admittedly, the direction of the High Court to grant higher scale of pay to the writ petitioner, upon him acquiring M.M. qualification from the last date of his examination, i.e., June 23, 2001, was never challenged by the State of West Bengal. The above order was accepted by 4 the appellant. The Court directed that all arrear payments should be made within eight weeks from the date of the order and the current pay should be in accordance with the enhanced qualification. The writ petition in which the order impugned was passed, was filed by the respondent no.1 with an allegation that although the higher sale of pay had been granted, the arrear payments had not been made. The learned Single Judge, upon appreciating the facts, observed that the case was an unfortunate one and directed that the arrear salary payable should be released. Her Lordship recorded that, upon assessment of the quantum of the arrear salary payable to the respondent no.1, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Cooch Behar wrote to the Director of Madrash Education, West Bengal on February 5, 2021 for release of funds. The funds were not released. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned AAAG submits that there was no intentional delay or laches on the part of the respondents and delay in payment was on account of paucity of funds. Thus, the learned Judge should not have granted interest. 5 9. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, as we also do not find any merits in the appeal. 10. In view of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal and the connected application are also dismissed. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)