ORDER : 1. The present application (Misc. Application No. 113/2016) has been filed by the applicant – State (Respondents in the writ proceedings) seeking recalling/review of the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 2. It is to be noted that the application in hands seeking recalling/review of the order passed as back as on 06.02.2012 came to be filed on 13.04.2016 – with a delay of about four years. 3. While filing the application, no explanation worth the name was given by the applicant for the delay, however, subsequently an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed by the respondent – State on 11.09.2017, apparently consequent to the Court proceedings of 11.08.2020 and in wake of the liberty sought during such proceedings. 4. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the non-applicant (writ petitioners) raised following two preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the application:- (i) the application in hand has been filed with an inordinate delay of four years, that too without proper explanation of the delay. (ii) The order dated 06.02.2012 was passed by the Court with the consent and it dealt with all the applicable law on the subject. As there is no error, much less apparent error, the application does not fall within the ambit of review / recalling. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Mr. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the applicant / respondent – State submitted that the delay in question occurred on account of pendency of the matter at various stages of the State Government. 7. Reading the application in its entirety, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that initially the State had decided not to file an appeal and to comply with the order, but when the matter was examined by the Finance Department, it was found that the order passed by this Court on 06.02.2012 was not in conformity with the Circular of the State Government dated 06.09.2002. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the State has shown the movement of the file at different stages in its delay condonation application which shows that the State was precluded from filing the application in time and prayed that four years’ time that has been taken by the State in moving the present application be condoned, as the same stands duly explained. 9. 9. In support of his contention that a litigant, more particularly the State, is not required to explain each days’ delay, learned counsel submitted that the detailed application filed by the applicant / State clearly shows that the State was not sitting idle and the matter was under active consideration of the State. 10. He argued that the State has decided to file the application seeking review/recalling of the order for cogent reasons and valid grounds and prayed that the delay condonation application be allowed and the application for recalling / review be heard on its merit. 11. In support of his contention that the delay caused in filing the application should be considered sympathetically, learned counsel cited Division Bench judgment dated 23.07.2020 passed in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ashiana Amar Developers (D.S. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1407/2018). 12. Highlighting that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed in September, 2017 and inspite of taking time for filing reply, no reply to the application has been filed by the non-applicants, Mr. Shah argued that whatever has been stated by the applicant-State in the application supported by an affidavit has remained unrebutted and thus, the application deserved acceptance. 13. On merits of the application, learned counsel submitted that true it is, that the order under consideration was passed by the Court while recording consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the State, but one fact cannot be lost sight of is, that the Court had referred to and relied upon the Circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 06.09.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), and a perusal thereof clearly shows that non-applicants (writ petitioners) were not entitled for the benefit of selection grade from the date of conferment of semi-permanent status, as has been held by the Court while passing order under consideration. 14. Having pointed out above fact, learned Senior Counsel argued that the Court has omitted to consider the true import of Circular dated 06.09.2002 and 30.09.1998 and proceeded to decide rights of the parties on the basis of Circular dated 25.01.1992. It was also argued that by the time of passing the order under consideration, Hon’ble Supreme Court has already decided the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. It was also argued that by the time of passing the order under consideration, Hon’ble Supreme Court has already decided the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49 , and if the said judgment was considered, the order under consideration could not have been passed. 15. Mr. Shah, further submitted that the petitioners had relied upon the Circular dated 30.09.1998 and therefore, this Court was required to take into account the effect of such circular. He argued that the order, which has been passed in ignorance of the relevant circulars and applicable laws, suffers from apparent error and thus, the same deserves to be recalled. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Surendra Mohnot & Ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 77 and submitted that this judgment is applicable on all fours. 16. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants (writ petitioners) submitted that simply because the non-applicants have not filed a counter or reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, their right to object to the application seeking condonation of delay cannot be taken away. 17. He navigated the Court through the contents of the application and submitted that there are huge gaps (of six months / eight months) in moving the file from one office to another and the application, seems to have been filed in great detail, fails to explain the delay, which had occurred between moving file from one office to another. 18. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the delay in question is inordinate and because of the said delay, in the period interregnum, the applicant / respondent – State has implemented the order passed by this Court in the case of some of the employees. Therefore, the position has changed and benefits have been extended, which cannot be permitted to be undone by entertaining the present application at such a belated stage. 19. In support of his contention, that delay in the present case should not be condoned, Mr. Saluja relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., reported in (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 713, more particularly the principles culled out by the Supreme Court in Para 15 thereof. Saluja relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., reported in (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 713, more particularly the principles culled out by the Supreme Court in Para 15 thereof. 20. On merits of the application, Mr. Saluja submitted that the order under consideration has been passed after dealing with applicable Circular / provisions of law, that too with the consent of learned counsel. He submitted that had the Government Counsel not given his consent, the non-applicants (writ petitioners) would have argued and satisfied the Court about their right to claim selection scale from the date of conferment of semi-permanent status. He argued that the writ petitioners are entitled for grant of benefit of selection grade from the date of conferment of semipermanent status. 21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the adjudication made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, particularly in Para (xii) and (xiii) in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee (supra), this Court is of the view that if the facts stated in the application as a whole are considered, the State has been able to atleast explain the delay if not justify. 22. True it is, that the State has taken abnormally long time of about four years in filing the application. But the delay in the present case deserves to be condoned, as the State had not rested on its oars and the matter was being pursued at different levels of the State. 23. The application (I.A. No. 4769/2017) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 24. Moving on to the merits of the application, this Court is of the view that the consent of the Government counsel which is contrary to law cannot be construed to be binding upon the State Government in the light of the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Heera Lal reported in 1996 (10) SCC 574 , wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the concession made by Government Advocate contrary to law, is not binding upon the Government. 25. That apart, the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Mohnot (supra) throws enough light on all the issues including limitation and court’s power to review / recall the order, so also on merit of the case. 25. That apart, the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Mohnot (supra) throws enough light on all the issues including limitation and court’s power to review / recall the order, so also on merit of the case. The case in hands appears to be akin to what has been decided in the case of Surendra Mohnot (supra). 26. While passing the order under consideration, the Court omitted to consider import and impact of the above referred circulars and the judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject, perhaps because learned Government counsel gave his consent. 27. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, the application seeking recalling of the order dated 06.02.2012 is allowed. 28. The order dated 06.02.2012 is, hereby recalled. 29. Needless to state that any observation made in the order instant shall be treated limited for the purpose of deciding the application for recalling the order. The parties shall be entitled to put forth their case on merits in accordance with law, which will include the submissions made on the basis of circular dated 30.09.1998.