Judgment : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Court has today decided Writ Petitions no.243 of 2006, 326 of 2006 and 336 of 2006. There the question was whether wage revision given to cadre of Mamlatdar/ Joint Mamlatdar/B.D.O etc. was by way of interim arrangement or in recognition of grievance of anomaly. In the light of the Judgment dated 29/7/2003 delivered in Writ Petition No.205/1999 and other connected matters this Court has found that the said revision was in fact substitution of earlier pay scale and therefore not interlocutory or interim in nature. 2. Here the petitioners have been recruited after advertisement dated 11/10/1996. That advertisement prescribed pay scale of Rs.1600-50-2300-EB-60-2660 for the post of Accountant. Petitioners have received offer of appointment mentioning the very same pay scale and they have been appointed on 15/5/1997 in that pay scale only. 3. When 5th wage revision came to be implemented petitioners expected their placement in pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, however, they found that they are fixed in pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/-. This pay scale corresponds to 4th wage revision pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 or Rs.1400-2300/-. 4. Grievance of Advocate Supekar in this background is that when the petitioners have been selected after due advertisement against the post with stipulated pay scale, a pay scale lesser than that could not have been used to determine their fixation at the time of 5th wage revision. He is relying upon the judgment dated 29/7/2003 in Writ Petition No.357 of 1999, particularly, paragraph 3 onwards. He also relies upon the observations made by this Court in judgment dictated today to substantiate his contentions. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has submitted that very same Division Bench has in Writ Petitions no.322 of 1998 and 138 of 1999 decided on 28/7/2003 considered the Government decision dated 27/10/1997 by which the principles to extend the benefit of revised pay scale have been laid down. He submits that power of State Government to select pay scale as on 1/1/1986 for finding out a corresponding equivalent pay scale on 1/1/1996 has been accepted and upheld. He submits that accordingly even in the case of present petitioners the interim wage revision has been ignored and pay scale prevailing on 1/1/1986 has been looked into. He therefore, justifies the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 extended to the petitioners. 6. He submits that accordingly even in the case of present petitioners the interim wage revision has been ignored and pay scale prevailing on 1/1/1986 has been looked into. He therefore, justifies the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 extended to the petitioners. 6. During the course of hearing we find that petitioners had made a representation which has been turned down vide memorandum dated 15/6/2005 issued by the Respondent/State Government under signature of Director of Accounts and Ex Officio Joint Secretary to the Government. The communication states that because of the High Court judgment passed in Writ Petition no.322 of 1998 and 138 of 1999 on 28/7/2003, the grievance of petitioners has been rejected. 7. Thus the contention that the petitioners were appointed against a particular pay scale or impact thereof does not find any evaluation. The basic question in the matter is whether the pay scale advertised i.e. 1600-2660 on 11/10/1996 was sanctioned as an interim revision or then it was in lieu of recognition of the fact that some injustice was done and therefore, fixation on 1/1/1986 was not proper. The State Government should have addressed the question whether there was any grievance pertaining to anomaly in the process of fixation and that anomaly has been removed by sanctioning pay scale of Rs.1600-50-2300-EB-60-2660. 8. The State Government has filed a reply before this Court. In it, it is stated that recommendation of 4th Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of Goa w.e.f 1/1/1986 and cadre of accountants were fixed in pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 from 1/7/1987. The Government of Goa revised pay scale of that cadre to Rs.1600-2600 by order dated 18/6/1990. Thus, the accountants were fixed in pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 on 1/1/1986 and prima facie it can be gathered that some grievance about the pay scale was being made. Therefore, that grievance has been redressed w.e.f 1/7/1987 that is within short time of the initial fixation. However, petitioners or respondents have not produced before this Court the copy of the order dated 18/6/1990. Therefore, whether by the said order the interim revision has been allowed or a grievance about anomaly has been redressed cannot be decided by this Court. 9. However, petitioners or respondents have not produced before this Court the copy of the order dated 18/6/1990. Therefore, whether by the said order the interim revision has been allowed or a grievance about anomaly has been redressed cannot be decided by this Court. 9. As we find that the representation made by the petitioners has been perfunctorily rejected and in the light of paragraph 3 of the Affidavit -in-reply filed by the respondents, it would be in the interest of justice, if the entire controversy is placed back before Respondent no.1/State Government for its fresh consideration. 10. Accordingly, the memorandum dated 15/6/2005 at Annexure “A” of the petition is set aide. Petitioners are given liberty to file additional/supplementary representation if they so desire within a period of four weeks from today. The State Government shall take suitable decision afresh upon the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within further period of eight months. 11. Thus with these directions the writ petition is disposed off. Rule is discharge. No costs.