JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is one of the glaring instances of vexatious litigation filed at the instance of the State whereby the respondent-petitioner was not only deprived of his legitimate retiral benefits of pension but was also dragged into the litigations, one after the other since 1997, without any fault on his part. 2. The undisputed facts as transpiring from the memo of appeal as well as from the order passed by the learned Single judge are that the respondent- petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III on 31.7.1963 and was thereafter promoted as Teacher Gr. II and was granted selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600, fixing his pay at Rs. 2050/- and thereafter his pay was fixed at Rs. 2120/-, on 25.1.1992.The petitioner retired on 31.1.1997, and at that time his basic pay was Rs. 2600/-. It appears that thereafter since his pension and other retiral benefits were not decided by the concerned appellant-authority, he was constrained to file the petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3764/1997, after giving legal notice to the appellants. The learned Single judge vide order dated 11.7.1997, directed the appellants to decide the case of the petitioner and prepare the relevant papers for releasing the payment of pension, gratuity etc. within two months. Thereafter, the appellants sanctioned the pension of the petitioner on the basic pay of Rs. 2450/- instead of Rs. 2600/- in September, 1997. The respondent again had to give legal notice calling upon the appellants to fix his pension on the basis of his pay at Rs. 2600/- instead of Rs. 2450/-, however, the same was not responded to by the appellants. The respondent, therefore, again was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5310/1988. The learned Single judge vide order dated 26.10.2006, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the said petition directing the appellants (original respondents) to count the retiral benefits of the respondent (petitioner) considering his last pay drawn in the pay scale of Rs. 2600/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have preferred the present intra Court appeal after delay of 304 days. It has been stated that pending this Appeal, the respondent also had to file contempt proceedings for not complying with the directions given by the learned Single Bench. 3. 2600/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have preferred the present intra Court appeal after delay of 304 days. It has been stated that pending this Appeal, the respondent also had to file contempt proceedings for not complying with the directions given by the learned Single Bench. 3. In the instant appeal, the office appears to have registered the appeal in the regular number, though the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal by the appellants was pending. In any case, considering the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, the same is allowed and the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. 4. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that though there were specific allegations made by the petitioner in his writ petition filed before the learned Single judge, pointing out the factual aspects of his appointment and retirement, no reply to the said petition was filed by the concerned respondent No. 2 i.e. Director Pension and Pensioners Welfare, contradicting the said averments. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 had submitted the reply virtually admitting the averments made in the petition with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding non fixation of his pension as per his last pay at Rs. 2600/- instead of Rs. 2450/-. It transpires that it was only during the course of arguments, the submissions were made on behalf of the respondents before the learned Single judge that the petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher and had remained only untrained teacher till the date of his retirement and that the benefit of selection grade allowed to the petitioner by the concerned administrative department was contrary to the instructions/rules issued by the Finance Department. Of course, the learned Single judge disagreeing with the said submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents has allowed the petition relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18 , in which it was held that upgraded pay scale given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation by the employee, could not be recovered. 5. 1 SCC 18 , in which it was held that upgraded pay scale given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation by the employee, could not be recovered. 5. Apart from the fact that there was no reply raising such contentions filed by the respondents in the petition, there is no document or material produced along with the memo of appeal in the present appeal substantiating such contention that the respondent-petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher and had remained so till the date of his retirement. Under the circumstances, it clearly transpires that there was no rhyme or reason not to grant pension to the respondent on the basis of his pay at Rs. 2600/- which he was getting at the time of retirement. Mr. Naqvi, learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to point out any material to substantiate the stand of the appellants, on the contrary submitted that the appellants have already complied with the order passed by the learned Single judge, as the respondent had initiated the contempt proceedings against the appellants. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, it clearly transpires that the appellants, not only have dragged the respondent into the litigation time and again, but have filed the present appeal without any application of mind and without placing on record any material much less cogent material. it is indeed unfortunate that the respondent who retired in January 1997, had to approach this Court time and again seeking his legitimate dues of retiral benefits without any fault on his part. In the circumstances, the present appeal is required to be dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the appellants within four weeks from today. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed with cost. *******