ORDER 1. Heard parties. 2. IA, application for impleadment is allowed. 3. The appellants, 15 in number were appointed as Craft Instructors on different dates in 1966. The Craft Instructors, who were" similarly situated with the appellants, filed Civil Rule No. 48 of 1980 praying inter alia equal pay for equal work which was allowed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Bench at Agartala. The order dated 27-1-1989 passed by the f Division Bench, as it is stated at the Bar, has been assailed by the State of Tripura by filing SLP before this Court which has been dismissed. 4. Another Civil Rule No. 53 of 1983 was also filed by one Bisweswar Sen in a representative capacity of the General Secretary of the Tripura Government Craft Instructors Association. 5. The prayer made in the writ petition was to the effect that the pay scale of the appellants be revised with effect from 1-12-1966, the date on which the appointments in respect of the appellants were made. The Division Bench of the High Court, Bench at Agartala, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by its order dated 11-8-1989 following the judgment of the Division Bench in Civil Rule No. 48 of 1980. Against the said order dated 11-8-1989, the SLP, namely, SLP (C) No. 16171 of 1991, CC No. 14485 was filed which was dismissed by this Court on 7-10-1991 in the following terms: "In the same circumstances another case by the petitioner has been dismissed. This special leave petition is also, therefore, dismissed." 6. The order refers to the dismissal of another SLP filed by the State of Tripura obviously against the order dated 27-1-1989 passed by the Division Bench in Civil Rule No. 48 of 1980 which has been followed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1983. 7. As it would appear from the record, the appellants were extended the benefit pursuant to the judgment of the High Court. However, subsequently a show-cause notice dated 27 -1-1994 was issued to the appellants as to why the benefit which has been extended to them should not be recovered and ultimately the actual recovery was made by memorandum dated 5-12-1995 which has resulted into the filing of Civil Rule No. 13 of 1996. Civil Rule No. 13 of 1996 was the subject-matter which creates the present controversy. 8. Civil Rule No. 13 of 1996 was the subject-matter which creates the present controversy. 8. It would appear that the show-cause notice dated 27-1-1994 and memorandum dated 5-12-1995 which resulted in recovering the benefit extended to the appellants, was subsequent to the order dated 7-10-1991 passed by this Court which dismissed the SLP filed by the State against the High Court order extending the benefit to the appellants. The State Government having failed in successive SLPs before this Court, it would be contemptuous to have denied the benefit granted by the High Court to the appellants. 9. In the view that we have taken, we are of the view that both the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench were clearly erroneous and they are accordingly set aside. The benefit shall be paid to the appellants with effect from the date of their respective appointments, if not already paid. 10. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. The recovery proceedings qua the appellants are accordingly set aside. 11. We, however, make it clear that benefit of this order shall be confined in respect of the present appellants before this Court only.