Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed jointly by four petitioners namely; Bhanwar Singh, Bhanwarlal, Surajmal Lodha and Nemichand jointly, who were employed with National Textile Corporation Ltd. at Beawar. The Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi introduced a voluntary retirement scheme for modernization and rehabilitation for the workmen employed in the National Textile Corporation Units at Beawar, which scheme was circulated vide Circular dated 9/9/1992. National Textile Corporation gave option to their employees to establish their own powerlooms and for that purpose, they were offered to buy existing powerlooms of National Textile Corporation. In that scheme, the respondents also ensured for advancement of loan to the workmen through Rajasthan Financial Corporation for establishing such powerlooms. Clause 4 of the scheme inter-alia provided that such of the workmen, who would take existing powerloom of National Textile Corporation, would be granted 33% as production incentive / subsidy of the capital investment and those, who establish new powerloom, would be granted 25% as production incentive/ subsidy of the capital investment. The said production incentive/subsidy was to be granted on recommendation of a Committee to be constituted by the Government of India. All the petitioners in the present petition had purchased the existing powerlooms of the National Textile Corporation. 2. Petitioner No.1-Bhanwar Singh established proprietorship firm in the name & style of M/s.Gehlot Textiles at Beawar and had invested a sum of Rs.1,72,665/- on his own on purchase of machinery and had taken a loan from R.F.C. for an amount of Rs.3,11,000/- and certain other amount and in all invested a sum of Rs.6,82,665/-. Petitioner No.2-Bhanwarlal established proprietorship firm in the name & style of M/s.Ambika Power Loom Factory at Beawar and had invested a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- out of which, he took loan from R.F.C. for an amount of Rs.3,26,000/-. Similarly, petitioner No.3-Surajmal Lodha established proprietorship firm in the name & style of M/s. Ganpati Vastra Udyog at Beawar and invested a sum of Rs.5,84,000/- out of which, he took loan from R.F.C. for an amount of Rs.3,13,000/-. Petitioner No.4 - Nemichand established proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s. Ganpati Powerloom Factory at Beawar and invested a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- out of which, he took loan from R.F.C. for an amount of Rs.1,92,000/-. 3. Petitioner No.4 - Nemichand established proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s. Ganpati Powerloom Factory at Beawar and invested a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- out of which, he took loan from R.F.C. for an amount of Rs.1,92,000/-. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite the Government of India promising to pay incentive/subsidy to the extent of 33% of the capital investment, did not keep up that promise. Petitioners initially repaid substantial amount of loan to R.F.C. but because the promise/help by the Government of India did not come about, they went into default. R.F.C. proceeded against them under the State Financial Corporation Act. It was in that situation that petitioners approached this Court by filing different four writ petitions, petitioners No.1 to 3, in the name of their respective firm and petitioner No.4 on his own name, with the prayer that the National Textile Corporation be directed to release the production incentive/subsidy of the capital investment to the extent of 33% and Rajasthan Financial Corporation be directed not to initiate the proceedings against them under the State Financial Corporation Act. Writ petitions in so far as petitioner No.2 seeking direction to the R.F.C. not to initiate proceedings under the State Financial Act is concerned, were dismissed on merits, however in regard to first prayer seeking direction to National Textile Corporation to release the production incentive/subsidy, writ petition was dismissed for want of non-joinder of necessary party holding that such production incentive / subsidy could be granted only by the Government of India. Since Government of India is not party, therefore mandamus prayed for cannot be issued. However, the learned Single Judge while deciding all the four writ petitions by a common judgment dated 7/6/1996 held that inaction on the part of the Government of India in not timely constituting the committee and not getting the case of the petitioners for grant of incentive/subsidy processed and considered under the rehabilitation scheme was highly unfair and unreasonable. It is thereafter that the petitioners again approached this court by jointly filing this writ petition inter-alia with the prayer that a mandamus be issued to the respondent-Government of India to pay to them production incentive/subsidy to the extent of 33% of the capital investment made by them. 4. It is thereafter that the petitioners again approached this court by jointly filing this writ petition inter-alia with the prayer that a mandamus be issued to the respondent-Government of India to pay to them production incentive/subsidy to the extent of 33% of the capital investment made by them. 4. Shri Manoj Singh Raghaw, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has at the outset raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition contending that claim of the petitioners was earlier adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge and rejected, may be on account of non-joining of necessary party, present writ petition therefore would be barred by the principles of res judicata. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has contested this objection by citing judgment of Supreme Court in Pujari Bai vs. Madan Gopal : (1989) 3 SCC 433 to argue that writ petitions were not dismissed on merit to the extent of prayer clause No.1 therein. Those writ petitions were rather dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Inter-se dispute in that case was between different parties and not in between the same parties, the Government of India having not been impleaded as party in earlier writ petitions, therefore, principles of res judicata would not be attracted. 6. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in earlier batch of writ petitions dated 7/6/1996 reveals that as far as merits of the case is concerned, learned Single Judge sufficiently observed in favour of the petitioners, however, did not issue the mandamus prayed for on account of non-impleadment of the Government of India as party holding that “unfortunately the petitioners have not impleaded the Government of India as party to the writ petition and in absence of the party so far as grant of production inventive subsidy is concerned, this Court is helpless in granting a relief to the petitioners or even giving any direction to person, who is not before this Court.” It was on that note that the writ petitions were dismissed. Principle of res judicata postulates that no court shall in the matter in which directly and substantially an issue in a former suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they were litigating under the same title, in a competent court to try such subsequent suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court. In so far as parties are concerned, decision that was rendered in the earlier writ petition cannot be said to have been decided between the same parties and for that matter National Textile Corporation cannot be said to have been litigating under the same title because as per the incentive scheme, it was Government of India alone, which could have on the recommendation of the committee granted incentive / subsidy. In so far as however merits of the case is concerned, the learned Single Judge rather made scathing criticism of the conduct of the Government of India and sufficiently observed in favour of the petitioners holding that they were very much entitled to grant of production incentive/subsidy. The preliminary objection now raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition after writ petition was admitted long back and is awaiting disposal for last sixteen years, cannot be therefore accepted and is accordingly rejected. 7. Coming now to the merits of the case, it is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of the writ petition, respondents have considered and offered to pay to the petitioners production incentive / subsidy but only to the extent of 10% of the total capital investment and in some cases, less than that. This fact is confirmed even by the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. This court can therefore safely proceed on the assumption that case of the petitioners for grant of production incentive / subsidy was processed on the basis of the recommendation of the committee referred to in the aforesaid scheme and the committee has recommended their case for grant of production incentive / subsidy. Controversy now rests in a narrow compass whether the respondents would be justified in granting production incentive / subsidy of the capital investment even for less than 10% thereof, whereas the promise that was extended to the petitioners was for more than 33% of the capital investment? 8. Controversy now rests in a narrow compass whether the respondents would be justified in granting production incentive / subsidy of the capital investment even for less than 10% thereof, whereas the promise that was extended to the petitioners was for more than 33% of the capital investment? 8. There is an additional factor to be considered in the present case, which is that unlike in ordinary cases of scheme of production incentive/ subsidy, this court is dealing with the case of the persons, who were employees of the National Textile Corporation and were offered the existing the powerlooms as part of their voluntary retirement scheme. They started their small business with whatever savings they had at the time of such voluntary retirement by additionally taking loan from the R.F.C. that too with the help of the respondents. This Court while dealing the callous and lackadaisical approach of the respondents in the earlier batch of writ petitions, observed as under:- “There seems to be a valid grievance so far as grant of production incentive subsidy as per the scheme is concerned. The concerned workmen were asked to get voluntary retirement under the rehabilitation scheme as formulated by the Government of India. As per the scheme, some of the workmen took voluntary retirement and put all their money in installing the powerloom factories with the help of loans sanctioned by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. It is a different thing that the units may do good business and may not-fairwell because of various reasons including market position, power cut, etc. However, still they have some hopes that they may get some breathing time by getting the incentive subsidy as per the scheme. Most unfortunately inspite of the repeated reminders from National Textiles Corporation (BP & R) to the ministry of Textiles, Government of India for constituting the committee, no action so far as taken by the Government of India for constituting the committee so as to make property recommendations in regard to production incentive subsidy to the concerned firms, once they have floated a rehabilitation scheme for the benefit of workers and alluring the workers for accepting the scheme, it becomes bounden duty of the Government of India to implement the scheme in true spirits. Observations that were then made by the learned Single Judge of this Court still hold good. Observations that were then made by the learned Single Judge of this Court still hold good. There was indeed no justification why the petitioners would not be paid the production incentive/subsidy when they acting pursuant to the voluntary retirement scheme, sought the existing powerlooms of the National Textile Corporation, made investment of their own and also took loan from the R.F.C. and continued to pay number of installments of loan to the R.F.C. with the hope that eventually help by way of incentive/subsidy would be extended by the Government of India. The petitioners thus acting on the promise held out to them by the respondents altered their powerlooms. Respondents were estopped by the doctrine of promissory estoppel from going backup upon their promise and would be obliged to make payment of incentive/subsidy. In MRF Ltd., Kottayam vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax & Others – (2006) 8 SCC 702 , under challenge was the statutory notification exempting earlier notification and thereafter adversely affecting the rights that were already accrued. The Government in that case itself recognized the benefit of tax exemption for a period of seven years on fulfillment of prescribed conditions by the concerned industrial unit, which had actually obtained the eligibility certificate and after commencement of commercial production, was granted eligibility certificate and exemption order was passed its favour. Subsequently, the State Government issued another notification excluding the formation of a compound rubber from the definition of 'manufacture' for the purpose of the 'original exemption notification' In those facts, it was held by the Supreme Court that the impugned action on the part of the State Government is highly unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and, therefore, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Action of the State cannot be permitted to operate if it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Equity that arises in favour of a party as a result of a representation made by the State is founded on the basic concept of "justice and fair play". 9. Action of the State cannot be permitted to operate if it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Equity that arises in favour of a party as a result of a representation made by the State is founded on the basic concept of "justice and fair play". 9. In U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Another vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. & Others – (2008) 2 SCC 777 , it was held by the Supreme Court that the general principle that emerges is that once a representation has been made by one party and the other party acts on that representation and makes investment and thereafter the other party resiles, such act cannot be stated to be fair and reasonable. When the State Government makes a representation and invites the entrepreneurs by showing various benefits encouraging them to make investment by way of industrial development of the backward areas or the hill areas, and thereafter the entrepreneurs on the representations so made bona fide make investment and thereafter if the State Govt. resiles from such benefits, then it certainly is an act of unfairness and arbitrariness. 10. In J.K. Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others – 1986 ELT 703 (Raj.), this court held that government, giving excise duty concession to petitioner establishing factory by investing huge money, cannot revoke concession on principle of promissory estoppel. 11. In Union of India vs. J.K. Industries Ltd., AIR 1991 Raj 45 , this court, while dealing with question of unilateral revocation of benefit granted earlier, held that it cannot be allowed in view of doctrine of promissory estoppel and notification was held to be bad in law. In J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Others – 2002(2) WLC (Raj.) 106 = RLW 2001(3) Raj. 1736, J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Others – 2003(1) WLN 281, supra, this court in a case where 100% exemption was granted from sales tax by State notification dated 07.04.1998 and accordingly State Level Selection Committee granted eligibility but by way of corrigendum dated 30.09.1999, the exemption was reduced to 25%, held that such corrigendum is amendment and therefore can apply only prospectively and the petitioner was held entitled to relief as per the original scheme upto 07.01.2000 and as per the amended scheme thereafter. 12. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 12. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners production incentive / subsidy of the capital investment to the extent of 33% together with interest @9% p.a. within a period of three months from the date, copy of this order is produced before them. 13. If any of the petitioners had already been paid some part of production incentive/subsidy, same would be liable to be reduced from the amount of subsidy now arrived at and accordingly, respondents shall also not be payable to pay interest on the amount so paid.