Order As these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 22.5.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1288/2008 and analogous writ petitions they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant State against the aforesaid judgment and order, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to allow the writ petitions directing the respondent State/ appellant herein to assess the amount of arrears which accrued to the petitioners/ respondents herein in respect of annual increment, calculated from the dates it fell due in respect of each of the' petitioners/ respondents and put up a claim for allotment of funds before the State Government within a month from the date of receipt production of a copy of that order. 3. The respondent State acquiesced with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and did not prefer any appeal, but after a delay of 227 days, which would be approximately more than 7 months, the aforesaid appeals were filed before this Court alongwith applications for condonation of delay. The applications for condonation of delay were. listed "For Orders" but we thought it appropriate to consider the same alongwith the merit of the appeals. This is how, these appeals have been listed for admission alongwith the applications for condonation of delay. 4. In so far as the huge delay in filing the appeals is concerned, that has not been explained at all by the appellant State and we are not satisfied with the grounds taken in the applications for condonation of delay, yet we considered it appropriate not to dismiss the appeals on technical ground of delay without examining the appeals on merit and hence, we permitted the counsel to address us on the merit of the matters and we also perused the impugned judgment and order. 5. In so far as the entitlement of the petitioners/respondents herein to the annual increment is concerned, it is free from legal infirmity as the respondent State had merely raised an objection before the learned Single Judge that the payment could not be made since fund was not available and the appellant State had not challenged the entitlement of the respondents to claim the annual increment which is clear from the impugned judgment and order. That part has been adequately taken care of by the learned Single Judge himself as the appropriate authority has been granted liberty to move the State Government for allotment of fund. Thus, we are satisfied that there is no substance in these appeals even on merit. Hence, these appeals are dismissed on merit as also on the ground of delay.