Writ Appeal No.609 of 2011 13.12.2011 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellants. Heard on I.A.No.4645/11 an application seeking condonation of delay of 525 days in filing the appeal as also of admission. Although we find that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained in the said I.A., we are examining the matter on merits also. This intra Court appeal under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2615/2009 (s). The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the appellant herein to grant pension to the writ petitioner, in view of the fact that similarly placed employees including one Mangilal has been extended the benefit in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.431/03(s) and also taking into consideration that in the said case as also in the case of Narayan Vs. State of M.P. O.A. No.229/94 the S.L.P. was filed before the Supreme Court but it suffered dismissal. It has also been observed by the learned Single Judge that the Supreme Court has held that Gram Sahayaks are entitled to count their services for pension from the date of their absorption. Admittedly, the writ petitioner/respondent herein was absorbed vide order dated 31.01.1982 along with other employees including Mangilal and Narayan. The only distinction which has been canvassed by the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate is that the respondent/writ petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification and the absorption order being conditional, he was not granted the pension. During the course of the argument, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate did not dispute the fact that the absorption order passed on 31.01.1982 was never cancelled and the writ petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.12.1996 without there being cancellation of the said absorption order. In the circumstances, when the respondent's (writ petitioner's) absorption order was continued till he was retired, the denial of benefit of pension could not be said to be justified. Thus, we find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on merits as also on the ground of limitation as the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge AM.