JUDGMENT 1. - None has appeared for the respondent in spite of service. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the application Ws 5 of the Limitation Act as well as on the merit of appeal. 3. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which apepars to be bonafide and as a result of time taken in decision making process at different levels. which has prevented the appellants from filing the appeal within limitation. Therefore, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. However, coming to the merit of the case, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in this appeal. 5. The respondent-petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus that the non-petitioners-appellants in this appeal be directed to grant the pay scale No. 7 to the petitioner since the date of appointment as 15 has been given to other person like situted alike him. 6. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was appointed to discharge the functions of Sotre Munshi. While releasing the pay scale, the petitioner was given the pay-scale No. 6 while other persons similarly situated were given pay-scale No. 7. The cases of other persons were decided by the 20 Labour Court as well as by this Court to which reference was made in the writ petition. In support of his contention, the petitioner placed on record the respondents' own document from their department showing that he was appointed as Store Munshi from beginning and was discharging the functions of Store Munshi. In fact the recommendations were made by the various 25 officers at different levels for releasing the pay-scale in favour of the petitioner. 7. In reply to the writ petition, it was sought to be made out that the petitioner was appointed as Helper, whereas the persons with whom the petitioner was seeking parity, were appointed as Munshis and, therefore, disparity in the pay given to the petitioner in pay-scale No. 6, whereas pay scale No. 7 given to others is sought to be justified. 8. 8. However, the learned Single Judge on the basis of undisputed material, which is on record and it was sought to be excluded from consideration only on the ground that it was internal correspondence to which the petitioner could not have laid hands, but its veracity was not indispute, upheld the contention of the petitioner-respondent and allowed the writ petition. The fact that if the petitioner was discharging the functions of Store Munshi since from the date of appointment he was entitled to pay-scale No. 7, was not in doubt and dispute. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has again sought to raise before 40 us the same issue that the respondent was not appointed as Store Munshi solely on the premise of his documents appear on the muster roll. 10. In view of clear admissions contained in the documents emanating from the respondents admissions in their internal department correspondence that the petitioner was appointed as Store Munshi and discharging the functions of Store Munshi since from beginning, merely the matter of appointment would not alter the character of the post to which he has been appointed. Moreover. the veracity of the document produced before the Court was not challenged. The new ground obviously cannot be sustained.The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******