Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appeal was barred by limitation of 72 days of inordinate delay. We have not issued notice under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but on examining the merit of the appeal we find that there is no merit in the appeal and it would not serve the purpose by burdening the respondent with more litigation cost by issuing notice of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent-petitioner was initially employed under Government of India where he worked for nine years and thereafter by absorption under the scheme and he became the employee of the State of Bihar in continuation. At the time of absorption under Bihar State in the year 1973 the petitioner was fixed under pay scale of Rs. 387-600/- by fixing him at a stage at which he would reach by earning nine increments, the period spent under the previous service. 4. This position continued till 25.11.1995, when the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Government, Art, Culture and Youth Department informed the Accountant General that the respondent-petitioner shall be entitled to pay scale of Rs. 387-600/- but he shall not be entitled to nine increments from 25.11.1995. 5. The said order was not implemented until the petitioner retired and while the petitioners pay was adjusted in revised pay scale with effect from 1.01.1996 pursuant to recommendation by the 5th Pay Revision Committee, the petitioner was fixed appropriately by considering his original fixation with nine increments in the pay scale of Rs. 387-600.00. 6. However, when the petitioners pension case was being considered, the stand was taken by the present appellants that the petitioner was not entitled to nine increments from the first date of appointment i.e. 1.09.1973. 7. Aggrieved with the withdrawal of nine increments with retrospective effect after almost 22 years of service under the State Government the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1621 of 2006 which has been allowed by the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. The learned Single Judge found that on the materials available on record, the order that nine increments should not be given to the petitioner as has been initially given, cannot be sustained. 9. 8. The learned Single Judge found that on the materials available on record, the order that nine increments should not be given to the petitioner as has been initially given, cannot be sustained. 9. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that status of the petitioner in the service at the time of absorbing the petitioner in the State was in continuity of service from Union of India and he was treated as such throughout the service until he retired by taking into account of service spent under Union of India which was his first posting fixation in 1973. The said benefit could not have been withdrawn by the State Government without any reason. We do not find any reason disclosed in the petition either which could sustain the order dated 25.11.1995. Therefore, the appeal must fail and relief granted by the learned Single Judge to the petitioner-respondent is affirmed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.