JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant-State of Gujarat requesting to condone the delay of 60 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25/02/2016 in Special Civil Application No. 3812/2002 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application and has quashed and set aside the order/Resolution dated 12/12/2001 passed by original respondent No. 1 to the extent by which the pay-scale of the original petitioner was revised to Rs. 12000-16500 and it is held that the original petitioner is entitled to the pay-scale to Rs. 18400-22400 from 01/01/1996. 2. To satisfy ourselves whether there is any substance in the Letters Patent Appeal and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves interference or not, we have heard Shri Rakesh Patel, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State at length as if ultimately it is found that there is no substance in the Letters Patent Appeal, in that case, to issue notice upon respondent No. 2-original petitioner, who is a retired employee and thereafter to condone the delay and thereafter to dismiss the Appeal, the original petitioner will have to unnecessarily incur the legal expenses. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the original petitioner was serving as General Manager with GIDC in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000. Thereafter, original respondent No. 2-Gujarat Growth Centers Development Corporation Ltd. (GGDC) a public sector undertaking was incorporated on 11/12/1992. The original petitioner was sent on deputation from GIDC to Corporation on 21/03/1993. While he was on deputation he was considered for appointment as Chief Executive for Corporation on merits. The Board of Directors of Corporation approved the original petitioner as Chief Executive. The Government of Gujarat also approved the appointment of the original petitioner to the said post vide order dated 04/10/1995. Thereafter, the original petitioner resigned from the post of General Manager, GIDC as he was regularly and permanently absorbed with Corporation as Chief Executive. GIDC accepted the said resignation. While the original petitioner was absorbed and/or appointed as Chief Executive his pay scale was Rs. 5900-6700. Thereafter, the original petitioner resigned from the post of General Manager, GIDC as he was regularly and permanently absorbed with Corporation as Chief Executive. GIDC accepted the said resignation. While the original petitioner was absorbed and/or appointed as Chief Executive his pay scale was Rs. 5900-6700. Thereafter, the State Government and consequently Corporation took a policy decision to implement the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission. However, while implementing the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission by impugned Resolution dated 12/12/2001, the original petitioner, who was in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700, was brought down to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and consequently his pay scale was fixed at Rs. 12000-16500. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Resolution dated 12/12/2001 by which under the guise and/or at the time of revising the pay scale as per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced/brought down to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and consequently his corresponding pay scale was fixed at Rs. 12000-16500, the original petitioner preferred the aforesaid Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge. 2.2 It was contended on behalf of the original petitioner that the impugned Resolution dated 12/12/2001 putting the original petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and consequently putting the original petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 is absolutely illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice. It was contended on behalf of the original petitioner that as such he was appointed on merits as Chief Executive with the Corporation in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700 and his appointment was approved. It is submitted that thereafter he resigned from GIDC as General Manager. It is submitted that when the original petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700 as Chief Executive, while implementing the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission, he was required to be put in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400. It was submitted that therefore under the guise of revising the pay scale as per the record of the Fifth Pay Commission the original respondents has arbitrarily and illegally put the original petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 instead of Rs. 18400-22400. It was submitted that therefore under the guise of revising the pay scale as per the record of the Fifth Pay Commission the original respondents has arbitrarily and illegally put the original petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 instead of Rs. 5900-6700 as if the original petitioner was continued as General Manager in GIDC, and therefore, it was requested to allow the said Special Civil Application. 2.3 The aforesaid petition was opposed by the State by submitting that the original petitioner was put in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700 and his pay was revised but prior approval of the State Government was not obtained. It is submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 23/03/1998 the concerned Department/Corporation was required to obtain prior permission of the State Government. It was submitted that therefore when the original petitioner was sent on deputation from GIDC to the Corporation he was in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and thereafter when his pay was revised to Rs. 5900-6700 prior approval was not taken, and therefore, by the impugned Resolution and revising his pay as per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission he was rightly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-165000, which was corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000. 2.4 By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the impugned Resolution dated 12/12/2001 by which while revising the pay scale as per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission, his pay scale was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500, which was corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and on the ground that the same is illegal and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of Indian and also in breach of principles of natural justice. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has directed that the original petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400, which was corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700, which the original petitioner was getting as Chief Executive of the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. 18400-22400, which was corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700, which the original petitioner was getting as Chief Executive of the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Having heard Shri Rakesh Patel, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not required to be interfered with in exercise of intra court appellate jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that as such the original petitioner was appointed as Chief Executive of original respondent No. 2-Corporation on merits and his appointment was approved. His pay scale as Chief Executive was Rs. 5900-6700, which he continued to receive till the impugned Resolution came to be passed. However, while passing the impugned Resolution dated 12/12/2001 under the guise of revision of pay scale as per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 12000-16500 corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000, which he was getting as General Manager with GIDC. 3.1 Apart from the fact that prior to the impugned order/Resolution dated 12/12/2001 no opportunity of hearing was given to the original petitioner, while considering the revision of pay scale as per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission there was no issue whether while appointing the original petitioner as Chief Executive he was rightly to be in pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700 or not. That was not even the subject matter before the Government and/or Corporation. The appointment of the original petitioner was a fresh appointment on merits as Chief Executive and he was put in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700. After he was appointed as Chief Executive and after the said appointment was approved by the State Government thereafter the original petitioner resigned from GIDC, which was accepted. Therefore while implementing the benefit of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission in the year 2001, his pay scale was required to be considered, which he was getting as Chief Executive and not the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 which he was getting as General Manager with GIDC. Therefore while implementing the benefit of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission in the year 2001, his pay scale was required to be considered, which he was getting as Chief Executive and not the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 which he was getting as General Manager with GIDC. Under the circumstances, the original petitioner was required to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400, which was corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700, which he was getting as Chief Executive of the Corporation from 01/01/1996. 3.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as such, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in directing the State Government to put the original petitioner under the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400 from 01/01/1996 and the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the impugned order/Resolution dated 12/12/2001. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the Government Resolution dated 23/03/1998 is concerned at the outset it is required to be noted that the same is with respect to implementation of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission and as per the said Resolution prior approval of the State Government was required, and therefore, the contention on behalf of the State that while appointing the original petitioner as Chief Executive and putting him in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700, as the prior approval was not obtained and the same is required under Resolution dated 23/03/1998, the original petitioner was wrongly put in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700 cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, appointment of the original petitioner as Chief Executive was already approved by the State Government. 3.3 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the Appeal lacks merits, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, to condone the delay after issuing the notice upon the respondent No. 2 and thereafter to dismiss the Appeal shall be an exercise in futility and it will cause undue hardship to the original petitioner. Under the circumstances, when the Appeal lacks merits, we decline to condone the delay as there is no substance in the Appeal. Under the circumstances, the present application for condonation of delay is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances, when the Appeal lacks merits, we decline to condone the delay as there is no substance in the Appeal. Under the circumstances, the present application for condonation of delay is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 751/2016 and Civil Application (Stamp) No. 5558/2016 also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation and are accordingly dismissed.