JUDGMENT 1. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 8.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants assailing the legality of order dated 1.5.2012 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal"), allowing the appeal filed by the respondent questioning the action of the appellants in reducing the pay scale granted to the respondent holding the post of Store Munshi from Rs.490-840 to Rs.370-530,has been dismissed. 2. The appeal reported to be barred by limitation for 179 days, is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 3. Admittedly, the certified copy of the order under appeal was received by the appellants on 23.10.2018. It is stated that the instructions for filing the appeal could be issued by the officer-incharge to the counsel appearing for the State on 13.5.2019. There is no explanation whatsoever as to what prevented the appellants from taking the decision regarding filing of the appeal well within limitation. The reasons assigned for delay in filing the appeal are not plausible and acceptable and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined the appeal on merits as well. 4. The facts relevant are that the respondent, a work charge employee, on completion of two years' satisfactory service, was conferred the status of semi-permanent as Store Munshi w.e.f. 1.2.1984 and was extended pay scale of Rs.490-10-550-15-640- 20-840 vide order dated 27.4.1985. Vide order dated 19.3.1986, the pay scale of 490-840 granted to the respondent was reduced to 370-530 i.e. the pay scale admissible to the post of Munshi Grade-II but the semi-permanent status of the post of Store Munshi conferred upon the respondent was never withdrawn. Later, on completion of ten years of satisfactory service, vide order dated 30.3.1994, the respondent was conferred permanent status of the post of Store Munshi and fixation of his salary was directed to be made in the pay scale of Rs.800-1250. Later, on completion of ten years of satisfactory service, vide order dated 30.3.1994, the respondent was conferred permanent status of the post of Store Munshi and fixation of his salary was directed to be made in the pay scale of Rs.800-1250. The controversy having arisen regarding denial of proper pay scale to the respondent, she preferred a writ petition being No.5603/1996, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 27.2.2006 with the directions in the following terms: "Having considered entire facts and circumstances, though no adjudication as sought, can be made by this court under its writ jurisdiction, however, respondents are now directed to pass necessary orders in regard to giving proper payscale to the petitioner on appropriate post within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, she may seek proper remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law." 5. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court as aforesaid, vide order dated 22.2.2007 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, the respondent's prayer for grant of appropriate pay scale admissible to the post of Store Munshi was declined with the observation that the respondent was entitled for the pay scale admissible to the post of Munshi Grade-II which has already been granted. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2007, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was contested by the appellants taking the stand that while granting semipermanent status, the respondent was erroneously given pay scale of 490-840 and therefore, rectifying the error, her fixation made in the pay scale of 370-530 is in accordance with the rules. 7. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that throughout in the various orders issued by the appellant Department, the post held by the respondent is shown as Store Munshi and thus, without extending any opportunity of hearing to her, the action of the appellants in reducing the pay scale is against the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the factum of similarly situated work charge Store Munshi Shri Ashok Kumar being granted the pay scale No.7 vide order dated 8.3.1980 is also not controverted by the appellants herein. The Tribunal found that the factum of similarly situated work charge Store Munshi Shri Ashok Kumar being granted the pay scale No.7 vide order dated 8.3.1980 is also not controverted by the appellants herein. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 22.2.2007, the Tribunal directed the appellants to restore the pay scale of Rs.490-840 admissible to the Store Munshi initially granted to the respondent with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal also directed to grant first and second selection grade to the respondent on completion of 9 and 18 years of service. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent was accorded appointment on the post of Munshi and not Store Munshi and therefore, while granting semipermanent status, the pay scale of 490-840 erroneously given was rightly withdrawn and her fixation made in the pay scale admissible to the post of Munshi-II i.e. 370-530 cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that for rectification of error, no opportunity of hearing was required to be extended to the appellants and thus, the Tribunal had seriously erred in interfering with the order dated 22.2.2007 issued by the Superintending Engineer. Learned counsel would submit that for parity of reasons, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is also liable to be set aside. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. 11. A perusal of the documents on record reveal that throughout the service, the post held by the respondent is shown as Store Munshi. As per the extension proforma of work charge staff for the period 1.7.1984 to 31.3.1984 and subsequent thereto placed on record before the Tribunal, the respondent was employed as work charge Store Munshi on daily wages Rs.11.20. In the seniority list of the work charge employees published by the appellants on 19.7.1984, the respondent's name appears at serial No.1 in the cadre of Store Munshi. Admittedly, after completion of two years of satisfactory service, the respondent was conferred semipermanent status w.e.f. 1.2.1984 of the post of Store Munshi in the pay scale of 490-840. In the seniority list of the work charge employees published by the appellants on 19.7.1984, the respondent's name appears at serial No.1 in the cadre of Store Munshi. Admittedly, after completion of two years of satisfactory service, the respondent was conferred semipermanent status w.e.f. 1.2.1984 of the post of Store Munshi in the pay scale of 490-840. Thereafter, even while granting the permanent status on completion of ten years of service vide order dated 30.3.1994, the post held by the respondent was shown as Store Munshi and not Munshi Grade-II as claimed by the appellants. As a matter of fact, there was no material placed before the Tribunal to establish that the respondent was holding the post of Munshi Grade-II and not the post of Store Munshi. The fact that the similarly situated person was extended the semipermanent status on the post of Store Munshi in the pay scale of 490-840 also remained uncontroverted. 12. In this view of the matter taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the respondent holding the post of Store Munshi was entitled to be fixed in the pay scale of 490-840 admissible to the said post cannot be faulted with and thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 14. The special appeal is therefore, dismissed.