A.M.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) The appeal, in respect of which the present application for extension of time and condonation of delay has been filled under section 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been preferred by the Appellant State and seek to assail the judgement of a learned single judges on a petition under Article 226 presented by the Respondents No. 1 to No. 6 against the appellant State, as the Respondent No. 1, then being represented by the Secretary, Judicial Department (who is now Respondent No. 7 before us) and also the Secretary, Department of Finance as the Respondent No. 2, who in this appeal is representing the appellant State now before us. The writ petitioner No.1 in the Court below, no Respondent No. 1 before us is the West Bengal Judicial Service Association, an Association of the Judicial Officers in this State and the other co-petitioners, now Respondents No. 2 to No. 6 are officers of the State Higher Judicial Service and members of the above named Association while, as already noted, the Secretary, Judicial Department, who represented the State in the Court below, has now been arranged as Respondent No. 7. The fact that the appellant State, who as the Respondent No. 1 in the Court below was represented by the Secretary, Judicial Department, has had now to decide to prefer this appeal before us through the Secretary, Finance Department, relegating its earlier representative, the Secretary of its Judicial Department, to the position of a co-respondent, should go a long way to demonstrate that these two Departments are very much at cross-purposes. In fact, as would appear hereafter, even if these two Departments are not branded to be at logger-heads and to have adopted a somewhat bellicose attitude of zealous (if not jealous) combatants, it is manifest from the records that they are holding diametrically opposite views giving rise to unfortunate departmental in-fighting, which, to say the least, cannot but be detrimental to the smooth, healthy and orderly running of the Government.
(2.) The dispute, shorn of details not necessary for our present purpose, is whether "several financial benefits as has been allowed to the members of the Indian Administrative Service" ought to have been allowed to the members of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Services also with effect from the same date on and from which those have been allowed to the former. The State Government decided to grant the benefits to the former from an earlier date, but to the latter from a later date. The West Bengal Judicial Service Association and its members, the respondents here, challenged such fixation of a later date in the writ proceeding and the challenge having succeeded in the Court below, the State has come up in appeal but the same having been preferred after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therefore, the present application has been filed for extension of time and condonation of delay.
(3.) It has not been, as it obviously cannot be, disputed that the success of the Writ Petition was to go, and has accordingly gone, to the benefit of all the officers of the Higher Judicial Service including the Judicial Secretary and other high-ranking officers of the Judicial Department of the State, who took upon themselves the charge of conducting and contesting the Writ Petition on behalf of the State. As would appear from paragraph 1 of this application, the Judicial Secretary sent the relevant file to the Legal Remembrancer, another high-ranking Judicial Officer, "for engaging an Advocate to represent this Department". It would further appear that the Judicial Secretary appears to have regretted that though "almost all the prayers in the Writ Petition were recommended by this Department", yet "either for the refusal or delay in taking decision on the part of the Finance Department, the benefit could not be extended to the WBHJS fully at per with the IAS". The final fiat of the Judicial Secretary was that "we may swear an affidavit to the effect that we do not see any grounds or reasons to oppose the prayer".;