JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the writ petitioner, is directed against the common judgment and order dated 24th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.167/1997 and 3 (three) other writ petitions, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for fixation of pay at the pay scale of Rs.200-300/- with effect from 26th November, 1970 to 14th September, 1978, in the revised pay scale of Rs.250-400/- with effect from 21st February, 1972 and Rs.350-725/- with effect from 1st March, 1974, respectively, with arrear salary as has been given to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and also to promote him to the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 27th November, 1991 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-4410/-, i.e. the date when the respondent No.4 was promoted to the said post. 2. The admitted facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) vide order dated 5th August, 1966 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Accountant vide order dated 30th September, 1966 with effect from 27th September, 1966 and 14th September, 1966, respectively. Both the appellant and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in the same pay scale of Rs.125-200/-. Both the posts of LDC and Accountant (Jr. Scale) are in the same grade. The respondent No.4, thereafter, was appointed in the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) in the pay scale of Rs.200-300/-, pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC held on 9th November, 1970. Such order of appointment was issued on 26th November, 1970. The said order of appointment of the respondent No.4 as Accountant (Sr. Scale) was, however, cancelled vide order dated 10th January, 1975, which was put to challenge by the said respondent in Title Suit No.1/1978 in the Court of the learned Sub Judge, Agartala. Vide judgment dated 18th April, 1979, the said suit filed by the respondent No.4 was decreed in his favor declaring the order dated 10th January, 1975 as invalid, inoperative and illegal and consequently the order of appointment as Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970 has been restored. The appellant though has claimed that the respondent No.4 being junior in the cadre of LDC/Accountant, he ought not to have promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970 has been restored. The appellant though has claimed that the respondent No.4 being junior in the cadre of LDC/Accountant, he ought not to have promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) and such appointment was in violation of the recruitment rules framed for the post of Accountant in Forest Department, the said order appointing the respondent No.4, however, has never been challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner. The decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No.1/1978 has also not been challenged by the State and as such, it attains finality. 3. A writ petition being Civil Rule No.15/1980, however, was filed by one, Shri Sunil Baran Roy, challenging the order of appointment of the respondent No.4 dated 26th November, 1970. A Division Bench of this court disposed of the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 27th April, 1989 refusing to set aside the order of appointment of the respondent No.4 as Accountant (Sr. Scale) dated 26th November, 1970, on the ground of delay and as the decree passed in Title Suit No.1/1978, having not been challenged, has attained finality. By the said judgment and order, the Division Bench, however, directed the State to finalize the inter-se-seniority between Shri Sunil Baran Roy (writ petitioner in the said writ petition) and the respondent No.4, keeping in view the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No.1/1978. It has, however, been made clear in the said judgment that while determining the inter-se-seniority, the Government would be well advised in not disturbing the seniority of other persons. The Division Bench, however, allowed the State to dispose of the objection, if any, filed by any of the incumbent relating to the seniority in accordance with law, if such objection has not already been disposed of. 4. Another writ petition being Civil Rule No.126/1981, in the meantime, was filed by the present respondent No.3 claiming the notional fixation of pay in the pay scale of Rs.350-725/- with effect from 1st April, 1978, basically contending that the present respondent No.4, who was the respondent No.3 in the said writ proceeding and who was similarly placed with him (the writ petitioner therein) was granted the said scale of pay with effect from 1st April, 1978. Due to absence of all relevant materials on record as no definite decision relating to the claim of the writ petitioner therein could be arrived at, the said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 4th May, 1989 directing the State Government to consider the claim of the writ petitioner therein (respondent No.3 in this proceeding) by observing that if the higher pay scale was made available to the respondent No.3 therein (respondent No.4 in the present proceeding), the same would also be made available to the writ petitioner therein, provided the cases of both these persons stand on the same footing. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tripura pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order passed in Civil Rule No.126/1981 considered the case of Shri Bimal Ranjan Saha, and rejected the same vide order dated 9th October, 1989, which was put to challenge in Civil Rule No.188/1990. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th July, 1996 quashed the said order dated 9th October, 1989 and directed the State respondents to give the same scale of pay to the writ petitioner therein (respondent No.3 in this proceeding) as was given to the respondent No.4, on the ground that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests did not apply his mind to the contention that both the persons, namely, Shri Bimal Ranjan Saha and Shri Bimal Kumar Chakraborty, since the date of their joining in service in the month of 1966 were doing the same type of accountancy works and also for the reason that the said order was passed without applying the mind to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No.126/1981. 5. A DPC was, thereafter, held on 21st February, 1990 to consider the cases of various employees, who claim to be senior to the present respondent No.4. The DPC in the said proceeding recommended the name of the appellant/writ petitioner along with others for promotion to the higher scale of pay, i.e. to Rs.200-300/- with effect from 26th November, 1970, i.e. the date when the respondent No.4 was promoted to the said scale of pay as well as to the subsequent post of Accounts Head Clerk. The said recommendation of the DPC, however, has not been accepted by the State Government. 6. The appellant/writ petitioner was, in the meantime, promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. The said recommendation of the DPC, however, has not been accepted by the State Government. 6. The appellant/writ petitioner was, in the meantime, promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 15th September, 1978 and then to the grade of Head Clerk with effect from 6th April, 1981. The respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of UDC, which is in the same grade as that of Accountant (Sr. Scale), with effect from 10th July, 1975 and to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant with effect from 6th April, 1981. The respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Accountant with effect from 26th November, 1970 and to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant with effect from 8th September, 1978. The promotion of the respondent No.3 as well as of respondent No.4 to the posts of UDC and Accountant (Sr. Scale), respectively, which are in the same grade, however, have never been challenged by the appellant, though he claims that he was senior to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the grade of LDC/Accountant (Jr. Scale). The final seniority list of Head Clerk/Head Clerk-cum-Accountant/Accountant, as on 16th March, 1991, was, thereafter, published by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 9th January, 1992 reflecting the respective dates of initial appointment as well as the subsequent promotion to different posts, as stated above, where the names of the appellant and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are also reflected. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the appellant claims that since the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were junior in the grade of LDC/Accountant (Jr. Scale) and despite that they were given the higher scale of pay and subsequent promotions, the respondent authorities cannot deprive him from the same benefit. The appellant, therefore, in the writ petition claimed fixation of his pay in the pay scale of Rs.200-300/- with effect from 26th November, 1970 to 14th September, 1978, in the revised pay scale of Rs.250-400/- with effect from 21st February, 1972 and in the pay scale of Rs.350-725/- with effect from 1st March, 1974, as has been given to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, apart from claiming the appointment to the post of Office Assistant with effect from 27th November, 1991, i.e. the date when the respondent No.4 was promoted to the said post. 3 and 4, apart from claiming the appointment to the post of Office Assistant with effect from 27th November, 1991, i.e. the date when the respondent No.4 was promoted to the said post. As noticed above, the appellant never challenged the promotion/appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the next higher post and also the promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of Office Superintendent, though he claims to be senior to the said respondents in the grade of LDC/Accountant (Jr. Scale). 8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner by the common judgment and order dated 24th March, 2005 by holding that the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not similarly placed, the respondent No.4 having been promoted to the next higher post, i.e. Accountant (Sr. Scale), on 26th November, 1970, which order has not been put to challenge by the petitioner. It has also been held that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 27th April, 1989 passed in Civil Rule No.15/1980 has directed the fixation of inter-se-seniority in the respective cadre only without overlooking the earlier promotion of the respondent No.4 and though the appellant in the present appeal has claimed to be senior to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the grade of LDC, as the respondent No.4 become senior to him in the next grade by virtue of the promotion, the writ appellant and the respondent No.4 do not stand on equal footing. It has further been held that the writ petitioner never claim the promotion to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970, as has been given to the respondent No.4 and as such, he is not entitled to the pay scale attached to the said post, he having not promoted. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the Division Bench in the judgment dated 4th May, 1989 passed in Civil Rule No.126/1981 has directed consideration of the case of the writ petitioner therein (respondent No.3 in this proceeding) vis-a-vis the present respondent No.4, if both stand on the equal footing and hence the pronouncement by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 11th July, 1996 passed in Civil Rule No.188/1990 has to be understood accordingly. The learned Single Judge has further held that the recommendation of the DPC dated 9th November, 1970, which are not binding on the State, have rightly not been accepted, as, such recommendation are the outcome of wrong and improper understanding of the earlier decisions of this Court. It may be notice at this stage that though by the said judgment dated 24th March, 2005, 4 (four) writ petitions filed by 4 (four) persons including the present appellant claiming the same relief were disposed of, the present appellant, who was the writ petitioner in Civil Rule No.167/1997, has only filed the appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Majumder, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. The contention of Mr. Deb, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant is that since the appellant was admittedly senior to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the cadre of LDC/Accountant, he having been appointed much prior to the respondents, the benefits given to the said respondents cannot be denied to him. According to Mr. Deb, the appellant was appointed as LDC, which is also in the cadre of Accountant (Jr. Scale), on 5th August, 1966 as against the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with effect from 27th September, 1966 and 14th September, 1966, respectively, as Accountant (Jr. Scale), i.e. in the scale of pay of Rs.125-200/-, he is entitled to the benefit of the pay scale, which was given to the respondent No.4, i.e. the pay scale of Rs.200-300/- with effect from 26th November, 1970. It has also been submitted that since the decision of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated 9th October, 1989 has been set aside vide order dated 11th July, 1996 passed in Civil Rule No.188/1990 filed by the present respondent No.3, directing the State to give the same benefit to the respondent No.3, as has been given to the respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot be deprived of such benefit, as the respondent No.3 was admittedly junior to him in the cadre of LDC/Accountant (Jr. Scale). Referring to the proceeding of the DPC dated 21st February, 1990, it has also been submitted by the learned Sr. Scale). Referring to the proceeding of the DPC dated 21st February, 1990, it has also been submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel that even the DPC having realized the mistake committed in promoting the respondent No.4 to the next post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) on 26th November, 1970, has recommended that the same benefit should be given to the appellant, who was admittedly senior to the respondent No.4 at the time of initial entry in service, i.e. in the cadre of LDC/Accountant (Jr. Scale), on which the Government, however, has not acted upon. The learned Sr. Counsel, therefore, submits that the benefit, as has been given to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, be also directed to be given to the appellant. 11. Mr. Majumder, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supporting the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that though the appellant claims to be senior in the cadre of LDC/Accountant (Jr. Scale) to the respondent No.4, he was promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970, so also the respondent No.3. The order of promotion of the respondent No.4 though was, subsequently withdrawn, such order of withdrawal, however, has been declared as illegal by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 18th April, 1989 passed in Title Suit No.1/1978 and hence the respondent No.4 stood promoted to the next higher post with effect from 26th November, 1970. The said position, according to the learned State Counsel, has never been challenged by the appellant at any point of time and not even in the present appeal. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appellant cannot claim that he is also entitled to the pay in the scale of Rs.200-300/-, i.e. scale attached to the promotional post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970, he having not been promoted to the said post with effect from that date. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appellant cannot claim that he is also entitled to the pay in the scale of Rs.200-300/-, i.e. scale attached to the promotional post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970, he having not been promoted to the said post with effect from that date. Referring to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it has also been submitted by the learned State Counsel that the Division Bench by judgment and order dated 4th May, 1989 passed in Civil Rule No.126/1981 directed the State to give the benefit to the present respondent No.3 (the petitioner therein) as was given to the respondent No.4 herein provided are placed in the same footing and hence the order passed on 11th July, 1996 in Civil Rule No.188/1990 has to be understood accordingly. The learned State Counsel further submits that, in view of the aforesaid position, the State Government has rightly not accepted the recommendation of the DPC dated 21st February, 1990. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings of the parties, apart from the judgment and order under challenge. 13. It appears from the final gradation list of Head Clerk/ Head Clerk-cum-Accountant/Accountant of Forest Department, as on 16th March, 1991, published on 9th January, 1992 that the petitioner was initially appointed in the cadre of LDC with effect from 1st August, 1966. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed in the said cadre with effect from 27th September, 1966 and 14th September, 1966, respectively. According to the appellant, all of them were appointed in the same cadre of LDC/Accountant (Jr. Scale) and in the pay scale of Rs.125-200/-. Though the appellant claims to be senior in the said cadre, the respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970. The said order of promotion, however, was cancelled by the Chief Conservator of Forests vide order dated 10th January, 1975, which was put challenge by the respondent No.4 in Title Suit No.1/1978. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 18th April, 1989 in favor of the respondent No.4. The effect of such a decree is that the respondent No.4 continued to be promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 18th April, 1989 in favor of the respondent No.4. The effect of such a decree is that the respondent No.4 continued to be promoted to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26th November, 1970. The appellant never challenged the said order dated 26th November, 1970 promoting the respondent No.4 to the next higher grade, i.e. Accountant (Sr. Scale), though he claims that he ought to have been promoted, he being senior to the respondent No.4 and the promotion of the respondent No.4 was contrary to the Recruitment Rules. 14. The materials made available on record of the writ proceeding reveal that the appellant was promoted to the next higher grade of Accountant (Sr. Scale) with effect from 15th September, 1978 and the respondent No.3 was promoted to the said post on 10th July, 1975, i.e. much before the appellant was promoted. The said order has also not been put to challenge by the appellant. The appellant and the respondent No.3 were thereafter, promoted to the rank of Head Clerk with effect from 6th April, 1981 as against the respondent No.4, who was promoted to the said rank on 8th September, 1978. 15. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 27th April, 1989 while refusing to interfere with the order of promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) dated 26th November, 1970, has, by observing that the decree passed in Title Suit No.1/1978 has not been put to challenge and as such attained its finality, directed the Government to determine the inter-se-seniority between the writ petitioner therein and the respondent No.4, keeping in view the said fact. What, therefore, intended in the said judgment and order, was that the seniority of the writ petitioner therein and the respondent No.4 herein is required to be determined in their respective cadre by taking the date of promotion of the respondent No.4 to the next higher grade as 26th November, 1970. What, therefore, intended in the said judgment and order, was that the seniority of the writ petitioner therein and the respondent No.4 herein is required to be determined in their respective cadre by taking the date of promotion of the respondent No.4 to the next higher grade as 26th November, 1970. By order dated 4th May, 1989 passed in Civil Rule No.126/1981 filed by the respondent No.3, a Division Bench of this Court has observed that if the higher pay scale was made available to the respondent No.3 therein (who is the respondent No.4 in the present proceeding), the same would also be made available to the writ petitioner therein (respondent No.3 in this proceeding), in case both these persons stand on the same footing. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th July, 1996 passed in Civil Rule No.188/1990 quashed the order dated 9th October, 1989 passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests refusing to give the same benefit to the present respondent No.3 as was given to the respondent No.4, and directed the State respondents to give the same pay scale to the petitioner from the month of September, 1966, even without recording any finding that the respondent No.3 was placed on the same footing as that of the respondent No.4. 16. A judgment passed in the earlier case can be treated as binding precedent only if the facts and circumstances are in pari materia in all aspects with the facts and circumstances of the case, where the same is sought to be applied. Such judgment must disclose the reason or the grounds on which the case has been decided. The order dated 11th July, 1996 passed in the aforesaid writ petition being bereft of any reason and without recording any finding that both the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are on same footing, therefore, cannot have any binding precedent and hence cannot be the basis for claiming the same benefit by the appellant, as has been given to the respondent No.3. 3 and 4 are on same footing, therefore, cannot have any binding precedent and hence cannot be the basis for claiming the same benefit by the appellant, as has been given to the respondent No.3. The appellant having claimed that he is entitled to the benefit, as has been given to the respondent No.4 with effect from 26th November, 1970, has to establish that he is entitled to the same benefit and cannot based his claim on a judgment passed by this Court in favor of another person, namely the respondent No.3, that too without recording any finding relating to entitlement. Fact remains that the appellant never challenged the promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of Accountant (Sr. Scale) made vide order dated 26th November, 1970 and his subsequent promotion and also the promotion of the respondent No.3, though he claims that he was senior to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The appellant for the reasons recorded above, is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 17. That being the position, the relief claimed in the writ petition has rightly been refused by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs. Appeal dismissed.