Judgment 1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals, since common question of law and facts arise in both. 2. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. These are plaintiffs' appeals against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 and 18.06.2005, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge-1, Panaji (trial Court, for short), respectively in Regular Civil Suit No. 146/97/B (old): Civil Suit No. 72/2004 (new) and Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old): Civil Suit No. 69/2004 (new). Parties shall hereinafter to be referred as per their status in the said suits. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suits for declaration that they are entitled to:- i. Higher scale of Rs. 290-500 as against lower scale of pay of Rs. 260-460 from the date of their appointments; ii. Higher revised pay scales of Rs. 330-530 in terms of Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education) Circular No. A.11014-30/77-School-6 dated 03.03.1983 with effect from 03.03.1983; iii. Benefits of subsequent revisions in the said pay scale of Rs.330-530; and iv. Other consequential reliefs. In Regular Civil Suit No. 146/97/B (old): Civil Suit No. 72/2004 (new), the plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaration that they are entitled for benefits of Time Bound Promotional Scale (TBPS). 5. Case of the plaintiffs, in short, in both the suits, was as follows:- The plaintiffs are working as Laboratory Assistants in Government aided Higher Secondary Schools and High Schools attached to the Education Department of Goa Government. The pay scales and the dates of appointments of the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old): Civil Suit No. 72/2004 (new) are as under: Sr. No. Name Date of Appointment Pay Scale 1. Shri Antonio Gosalo Amaral Fernandes 09.11.1976 Rs. 330-530 2. Shri Mohan K. Naik 29.11.1976 Rs. 330-530 The dates of the appointments and pay scale of each of the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old): Civil Suit No. 69/2004 (new) are as under:- Sr.No. Name Date of Appointment Pay Scale 1. Shri P.V. Ramesh 07-09-1981 Rs. 290-500 2. Shri Vassant P. Raikar 11-06-1976 Rs. 125-300 (prerevised) 3. Shri Suresh Chari 01-09-1979 Rs. 290-500 4. Shri Gurudas Khubal 15-12-1981 Rs. 290-500 5. Shri Minguel Gama 14-06-1977 Rs. 125-300 (prerevised) 6. Shri Jagdish Kadam 07-07-1981 Rs. 290-500 7. Shri Devendra Tuenkar 14-06-1984 Rs. 290-500 8. Shri P.V. Ramesh 07-09-1981 Rs. 290-500 2. Shri Vassant P. Raikar 11-06-1976 Rs. 125-300 (prerevised) 3. Shri Suresh Chari 01-09-1979 Rs. 290-500 4. Shri Gurudas Khubal 15-12-1981 Rs. 290-500 5. Shri Minguel Gama 14-06-1977 Rs. 125-300 (prerevised) 6. Shri Jagdish Kadam 07-07-1981 Rs. 290-500 7. Shri Devendra Tuenkar 14-06-1984 Rs. 290-500 8. Shri S.R. Redkar 23-11-1981 Rs. 290-500 9. Shri P.N. Archrekar 02-08-1976 Rs. 125-300 (prerevised) 10. Shri P.M. Chari 28-07-1980 Rs. 290-500 11. Shri Baburao R. Gaonkar 07-06-1984 Rs. 290-500 The plaintiffs have no promotional avenues but are entitled to selection grade scale which now corresponds with Time Bound Promotional Scale (TBPS). The Government of India vide Circular No. 11014-30/77-School-6 dated 03.03.1983 revised the pay scales of the Laboratory Assistants from Rs.290-500 to Rs.330-530 and the plaintiffs are entitled to the corresponding selection grade in the revised scale which is Rs.530-610. The pay scales of the Laboratory Assistants were revised from time to time since 25.08.1966. However, in spite of the said circular dated 03.03.1983, the Goa Government arbitrarily and illegally extended the pay scales from 16.09.1985 instead of 03.03.1983. The Government made discrimination between the Government Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Assistants of Government aided Higher Secondary Schools and High Schools, though, the nature of the duty and the work are identical. The Government has thus violated the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old), the plaintiffs served legal notices dated 20.10.1996 and 21.11.1996 and in Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated 05.11.1996 on the Government claiming application of the said revised pay scale of Rs.330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983, to the plaintiffs. However, the Government declined to grant the said benefits to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no promotional avenues and therefore they are entitled to TBPS. The Government granted TBPS of Rs. 1400-2300 to the Laboratory Assistants working in the Government College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Goa. But, the plaintiffs were granted TBPS of Rs.1350-2030, thus, creating further discrimination amongst same class of categories of employees. Hence, the suits. 6. In Regular Civil Suit No.146/1997/B (old), the plaintiffs further alleged that by Writ Petition No. 216/1985: transferred Application No. 95/1987, before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), to which the plaintiff no. But, the plaintiffs were granted TBPS of Rs.1350-2030, thus, creating further discrimination amongst same class of categories of employees. Hence, the suits. 6. In Regular Civil Suit No.146/1997/B (old), the plaintiffs further alleged that by Writ Petition No. 216/1985: transferred Application No. 95/1987, before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), to which the plaintiff no. 1, Shri Anthony Gonsalo Amaral Fernandes and four others were the parties, CAT extended the benefits of the revised pay scale of Rs.290-500 corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 330-530 with benefits of subsequent revisions in the said pay scale to the said persons with effect from 16.09.1985 although they were entitled to the said scale from 03.03.1983. It was alleged that although the benefits of the order/judgment dated 10.07.1990 of the CAT were implemented in case of other Laboratory Assistants, namely Thomas Fernandes, Kalawati J. Nagvenkar, Anthony Fernandes and Jani S. Nasnodkar, however, similar benefits were not granted to the plaintiff no. 2. 7. The defendants, by way of written statements, alleged as under: All the Laboratory Assistants of Non-Government aided Schools and Higher Secondary Schools and High Schools are given the scale of Rs. 330-530 with effect from 16.09.1985 as per the judgment and order dated 11.07.1990 of CAT in T. R. Nos. 95/87 and 98/87 and as per the Government Circular No. Acad/Misc./17/76/917 dated 14.03.1996. The CAT refused to extend the benefit of the new scale as from 03.03.1983. The Laboratory Assistants in Government as well as Non-Government aided Higher Secondary and High Schools are given benefit of revised pay scale from 16.09.1985 and therefore, it is false that there is discrimination between Laboratory Assistants of Non-Government aided Higher Secondary and High Schools and Government Laboratory Assistants. The posts of Laboratory Assistants working in the Government Engineering College, Farmagudi are promotional posts and are guided by their own recruitment rules. On the other hand, Government Laboratory Assistants working for Non-Government Higher Secondary Schools and High Schools are non-promotional posts and have separate recruitment rules under the Directorate of Education. The plaintiffs, therefore, can neither complain of discrimination nor are entitled to revised pay scale of Rs.330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983 or TBPS of Rs.1400-2300 as granted to the Laboratory Assistants of Government Engineering College. 8. The plaintiffs, therefore, can neither complain of discrimination nor are entitled to revised pay scale of Rs.330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983 or TBPS of Rs.1400-2300 as granted to the Laboratory Assistants of Government Engineering College. 8. In Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the defendants further alleged that the suit was not maintainable for want of requisite notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C., for short) and that the suit was barred by law of limitation. It was however added that in any event the said notice was replied by Government under letter No. Acad/Misc./17/76 dated 09.01.1997. 9. Following issues were framed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.146/1997/B (old):- Issues 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to: (a) Higher Scale of pay of Rs. 290-500 as against lower scale of pay of Rs. 260-460 from the date of appointment ? (b) Higher revised pay scales of Rs. 330-530 in terms of circular dated 3/3/1983 w.e.f. 3/3/1983 ? (c) Benefits of subsequent revisions in the pay scale of Rs. 330-530 ? (d) Benefits of time bound promotional scale? 2. What relief ? What order? 10. In Regular Civil Suit No.146/1997/B (old), the plaintiffs examined the plaintiff no. 1 as PW1. The defendants examined Shri Michael D'Souza, the Director (Admn.), Directorate of Education, as DW1. 11. In Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the trial Court framed the following issues:-Issues 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 330-10-350-EB-380-15-500-EB-15-530 with effect from 3.3.1983 instead of 16.9.1985? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that Government has made discrimination in the matter of grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 330-530 between the plaintiffs? 3. Whether plaintiffs prove that the benefits of revised pay scale of Rs. 330-530 and the subsequent revisions of the said scale with effect from 16.9.1985 was extended to some Government Laboratory Assistants and similar benefits were not extended to these plaintiffs? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove, that they are entitled to the higher T.B.P.S. pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 as granted to the Government Laboratory Assistants? 5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable? 7. What relief ? What order ? 12. In the said Regular Civil suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the plaintiffs examined the plaintiff no. 9, Prakash Achrekar, as PW-1. 5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable? 7. What relief ? What order ? 12. In the said Regular Civil suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the plaintiffs examined the plaintiff no. 9, Prakash Achrekar, as PW-1. The defendants did not examine any witness in this suit. 13. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, in both the suits, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old) suppressed from the Court the fact that some of the Laboratory Assistants had approached the High Court by filing Writ Petitions on 16.09.1985, which gave rise to T.R. 95/87 and T. R. 98/87, before the CAT. Learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old), found that the parties to the petitions before the CAT and before it in that suit were identical. There was no dispute that CAT had jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. Learned trial Court observed that the CAT, after hearing the parties, by Judgment and order date 10.07.1990, directed the Government to extend the benefit of said revised pay scale to the Laboratory Assistants from the date of filing of the writ petitions i.e. from 16.09.1985. The learned trial Court held that the question in issue before the CAT was the same as that in the present suits. The learned trial Court held that in the identical circumstances, the CAT held that the applicants to the said petitions before it were entitled to pay scales with effect from 16.09.1985 and the said judgment was based on the same circular on which the plaintiffs had placed reliance. The learned trial Court held that the CAT confirmed the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.330-530 as extended to the applicants therein i.e. Laboratory Assistants with effect from 16.09.1985 and not with effect from 03.03.1983. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that the Court of competent jurisdiction had already held that the applicants to the said petitions were entitled to the benefit of the said circular dated 03.03.1983 with effect from 16.09.1985 and said decision had become final for want of appeal and plaintiffs were therefore, estopped from agitating the same issue in the Regular Civil Suits. The learned trial Court held that though plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old) were not parties before the CAT, however, by challenging the non-implementation of the circular of the Government of India, the applicants before the CAT were representing the interests of entire class and not of their own person. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that the decision given by CAT is binding on the plaintiffs by the principle analogous to res judicata. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs were aware of the decision made by the CAT. Therefore, merely because the defendants did not specifically raise the plea of res judicata, they cannot be said to have waived the same. 14. Insofar as the TBPS, is concerned, the plaintiffs in both the suits have claimed TBPS in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 on the basis of TBPS granted to the Laboratory Assistants of College of Engineering vide order dated 8/10.06.1994. Vide the said order, the TBPS was granted to the Laboratory Assistants in terms of office memorandum no. 1-1-82-PER (Part) dated 05.07.1989 and vide the said order the employees who were drawing the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 were fitted in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. In Regular Civil Suit no. 146/1997/B (old), the trial Court observed that a wrong TBPS scale of Rs.1400-2300 has been granted to the employees of the College of Engineering drawing scale of Rs.1200-2040 when the same ought to have been 13502200. The learned trial Court held that as per the Annexure-I to the office memorandum dated 22.12.1989, the employees who were in pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 were required to be fitted in the TBPS scale of Rs.1350-2200; the employees drawing scale of Rs. 1320-2040 were required to be fitted in the TBPS scale of Rs.1400-2300 and accordingly, the TBPS in the scale of Rs.1350-2200 had been rightly granted to the plaintiffs. The trial Court observed that neither the Engineering College nor the employees of the said College who have been granted TBPS in the scale of Rs.1400- 2300 were parties to the suits and in their absence, the validity of the said order dated 8/10.06.1994 cannot be decided. The learned trial Court found that the said order dated 8/10.06.1994 was made by the Principal of Goa Engineering College. The learned trial Court found that the said order dated 8/10.06.1994 was made by the Principal of Goa Engineering College. The trial Court held that in terms of the office memorandum dated 22.12.1989, the employees who were in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and did not possess the requisite qualification for promotional post and post which did not have any promotional avenue were entitled to TBPS of Rs.1350-2400. It was, therefore, held that the grant of TBPS of Rs.1350-2400 to the plaintiffs could not be said to be in violation of the fundamental rights. The learned trial Court also held that the suit in respect of the claim of the TBPS was barred by law of limitation. In Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the trial Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove delivery of notice as required under Section 80 of the C.P.C. to the defendants and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It has been held that the post of Laboratory Assistant in Engineering College of Goa has promotional avenues and therefore under the scheme would be entitled to the scale of promotional post, whereas the posts in which the plaintiffs are appointed do not have promotional avenue. The trial Court held that only because higher scales are granted to the Laboratory Assistants of Engineering College of Goa, same scales cannot be granted to the plaintiffs in the absence of any evidence to show that they are in the same position of Laboratory Assistants of Goa Engineering College. In the result, in Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old), all the issues no. 1(a) to 1(d) were answered in the negative. In Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the issues no. 1 to 4 were answered in the negative; the issue no. 5 was answered partly in the affirmative; and issue no. 6 was answered in the affirmative. Consequently, both the suits came to be dismissed. The said Judgments and Decrees are impugned in the present appeals. 15. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, submitted that by circular No. A.11014.30/77-School-6, dated 03.03.1983, the Government of India revised the pay scale of Laboratory Assistants from Rs. 290-500 to Rs.330-530 and hence the State Government ought to have granted the revised pay scale as from 03.03.1983 but by Circular No. Acad/Misc./17/76/917 dated 14.03.1996, granted the same illegally from 16.09.1985. 290-500 to Rs.330-530 and hence the State Government ought to have granted the revised pay scale as from 03.03.1983 but by Circular No. Acad/Misc./17/76/917 dated 14.03.1996, granted the same illegally from 16.09.1985. He submitted that except Antonio Gonsalo Amaral Fernandes, the plaintiff no. 1 of Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old), the other plaintiffs were not parties to the proceeding before the CAT. He further submitted that in Writ Petition No. 723/2008 filed by Shri Thomas A. Fernandes, by judgment dated 22.06.2009, this Court has observed that the pay scale of said Thomas has been revised and fixed in pay scale of Rs.330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983. He urged that since Thomas has been granted the revised pay scale as from 03.03.1983, all the plaintiffs are also entitled to revised pay scale as from 03/03/1983. Insofar as notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. is concerned, the learned Counsel invited my attention to paragraph 8 of the plaint in both the suits wherein mention of notices dated 20.10.1996; 21.11.1996; and 05.11.1996, given to the defendants is made, which fact has not been denied by the defendants. He pointed out from paragraph 9 of the written statement filed by the defendants in both the suits that the said notices were duly replied by the defendants. He submitted that copies of said notices were annexed to the plaints, in both the suits. In so far as the TBPS is concerned, the learned Counsel relied upon condition no. 6 of the office memorandum dated 05.07.1989 and clarification 5 to the office memorandum dated 22.12.1989. He submitted that there was no need of availability of the promotional post and what was required was mere completion of 12 years after which the employee was entitled for higher scale. He submitted that by letter dated 02.08.1996, the Government of Goa forwarded to all the Government colleges the order no. 8/1/93-FIN (R&C)/P.C. dated 31.07.1996, by which the Government of Goa upgraded the pay scale of the existing employees and existing pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-EP 40-2040 was revised to Rs.1400-40-1800-EP-50-2300. He submitted that therefore, the petitioners were entitled for the said revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. He therefore, submitted that the appeals be allowed. 16. On the other hand, Ms. 8/1/93-FIN (R&C)/P.C. dated 31.07.1996, by which the Government of Goa upgraded the pay scale of the existing employees and existing pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-EP 40-2040 was revised to Rs.1400-40-1800-EP-50-2300. He submitted that therefore, the petitioners were entitled for the said revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. He therefore, submitted that the appeals be allowed. 16. On the other hand, Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants, submitted that the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 723/2008 and the material relied upon in the said petition was not produced on record in the suits and even otherwise the issue was totally different and was regarding recovery of excess amount. She submitted that though the defendants had raised the question of maintainability of the suit for want of notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C., the plaintiffs did not produce on record any notice issued to the defendants and therefore, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the judgment of CAT was not challenged and had become final and was pertaining to the Laboratory Assistants, as a class, and therefore, no error was committed by the learned trial Court by relying upon the said judgment. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the plaintiffs have been granted TBPS of Rs. 1350-2200 as per the instructions contained in the circular no. 1-1-82-PER (Part) dated 22.02.1989 and therefore, no grievance ought to have been made out by them for higher scale on TBPS. The learned Additional Government advocate urged that the appeals bear no substance and be dismissed. 17. I have gone through the entire material on record and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 18. The first question for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983 instead of 16.09.1985. 19. 17. I have gone through the entire material on record and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 18. The first question for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983 instead of 16.09.1985. 19. In Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, in both the suits, plaintiffs specifically pleaded that since there was no response from the Directorate of Education or the Government to their grievances, despite oral or written requests, the plaintiffs had to serve legal notice on the Government through their Advocate wherein their claim for revised pay scale of Rs. 330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983 was placed before the Government who had declined to grant the said benefits of the revised scales to the plaintiffs. In Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old), two notices were sent, one dated 20.10.1996 and the other dated 21.11.1996 whereas in Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old), the notice dated 05/11/1996 was sent. The plaintiffs had annexed the copies of the legal notices to the plaint in respective suits as Exhibit 'F'-colly and Exhibit 'F'. In paragraph 9 of the written statement, in both the suits, the defendants averred that the said notices were replied by the Government under letter No. Acad/Misc.-17/76/117 dated 09.01.1997. Thus, there was admission on behalf of the defendants regarding receipt of the notices dated 20.10.1996, 05.11.1996, and 21.11.1996 from the Advocate of the plaintiffs and the defendants had replied the said notices. In such circumstances, merely because the said notices were not produced in evidence and exhibited, that does not mean that notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was not issued. In Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old), no objection to the maintainability of the suit for lack of notice under section 80 of C.P.C. was taken. Such an objection was raised only in Regular Civil suit No. 126/1997/B (old). The finding of the trial Court that the said suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. The trail Court also held that the suits were hit by the principles analogous to res judicata. The finding of the trial Court that the said suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. The trail Court also held that the suits were hit by the principles analogous to res judicata. The perusal of the written statement reveals that nowhere the defendants had claimed that the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.1990 passed by CAT in T.R. Nos. 95/87 and 97/87 operated as res judicata. It has nowhere been pleaded in the written statement that the suit was barred by principles of or analogous to res judicata. In the case of “V. Rajeshwari Vs. T.C. Saravanabava”, [ (2004) 1 SCC 551 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the Court trying the subsequent suit and it is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. It has been held that plea of res judicata is founded on proof of certain facts and by applying the law to the facts so found and therefore, it is necessary that the foundation for the plea must be laid in the pleadings and issue must be framed and tried. It has been held that plea not properly raised in the pleadings or in the issues at the stage of trial, would not be permitted to be raised for the first time at the stage of appeal. It is further held that not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. It has also been held that the plea depending on the facts of a given case is capable of being waived, if not properly raised at an appropriate stage and in appropriate manner and a party adversely affected by the plea of res judicata may proceed on an assumption that his opponent had waived the plea by his failure to raise the same. In the present case also, no plea of res judicata had been raised in the written statement and no issue was framed by the trial Court. In the present case also, no plea of res judicata had been raised in the written statement and no issue was framed by the trial Court. What is more important is that none of the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old) were parties to the proceedings before the CAT and even the plaintiff no. 2 of Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old) was not a party to the said proceedings. In such circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that the claim was barred by the principle analogous to res judicata and plaintiffs are stopped from re-agitating the issue cannot be sustained. 21. However, that does not mean that the plaintiffs are entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 330-530 as from 03.03.1983. 22. Indisputably, by letter no. A 11014-30/77-School-6 dated 03.03.1983, the decision of the Government of India to revise the pay scales of Laboratory Assistants from the existing pay scales of Rs. 290-500 to Rs. 330-530, with corresponding selection grade pay scale of Rs. 530-610, was conveyed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Education, to the Education Secretaries of all the Union Territories, except Chandigarh. It is nowhere stated in the said letter no. A.11014-30/77-School-6 dated 03.03.1983 that the said revision shall be implemented with immediate effect or that the same shall be effective as from 03.03.1983. In paragraph 3 of the said letter, it is stated that the revised pay scales should be effective from the date of issue of the order and the pay of the incumbents should be fixed in accordance with the provisions contained in the fundamental rules. The Government of Goa, Department of Education by Order/Circular no. Acad/Misc/17/76/917 dated 14.03.1996, revised the pay scales of Laboratory Assistants in Aided High Schools/Higher Secondary Schools with effect from 16.09.1985. Some Laboratory Assistants including Shri Antonio Gonsalo Amaral Fernandes, the plaintiff no. 1 of Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B had filed Writ petitions No. 216/1985 and 237/1985, before this Court. Since CAT had jurisdiction to decide the disputes raised in the said Writ Petitions, the said petitions were transferred to CAT and were registered there as T.R. 95/87 and T.R. 98/87. Vide Judgment and Order dated 11.07.1990, the CAT held that the applicants were entitled to the scale of Rs. Since CAT had jurisdiction to decide the disputes raised in the said Writ Petitions, the said petitions were transferred to CAT and were registered there as T.R. 95/87 and T.R. 98/87. Vide Judgment and Order dated 11.07.1990, the CAT held that the applicants were entitled to the scale of Rs. 290-500 with the benefit of subsequent revisions in the said pay scale from 16.09.1985 i.e. from the date of filing of the Writ Petitions. Even review application filed against the said Judgment and Order was rejected. It appears that because of the decision of the CAT as above, the Government of Goa revised the pay scales as from 16.09.1985. The Judgment and order of CAT was never challenged and has attained finality. At least the plaintiff no. 1 of Regular Civil Suit No. 146/1997/B (old) was one of the parties to the proceedings before the CAT. All the Laboratory Assistants in Secondary and Higher secondary Schools, accordingly, have been granted the revised pay scales as from 16.09.1985. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has produced before this Court a copy of the Judgment dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 723 of 2008 between “Shri Thomas A. Fernandes Vs. The Director of Education, Government of Goa and two Ors”. There is an observation in this Judgment that the pay of Shri Thomas A. Fernandes, the petitioner therein has been revised and fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-530 with effect from 03.03.1983. But there is also a mention of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the pay of said Thomas Fernandes was fixed on 18.12.1975 @ Rs. 260/- in the pay scale of Rs. 260-430 and then it has been re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-530 with effect from 16.09.1985. Said Thomas Fernandes was one of the parties to T.R. No. 95/1987 and the CAT has, inter alia, held that said Thomas Fernandes is entitled to the scale of Rs. 290-500 with the benefit of subsequent revisions in the said pay scale as from 16.09.1985. That being the case, the question of the Government of Goa granting the revised pay scale to Shri Thomas Fernandes as from 03.03.1983 does not arise. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs produced a copy of the order dated 09/01/1993 issued by the Principal, Dr. That being the case, the question of the Government of Goa granting the revised pay scale to Shri Thomas Fernandes as from 03.03.1983 does not arise. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs produced a copy of the order dated 09/01/1993 issued by the Principal, Dr. T.B. Cunha Government Higher Secondary School, Panaji-Goa. Such order was not produced by the plaintiffs in any of the suits. Be that as it may, the said order reveals that the pay of Shri Thomas Fernandes was fixed on 18.12.1975 in the scale of Rs. 260-8-300-EB-8-340-10-380-EB-430 and then it was revised to Rs. 330-10-350-EB-380-15-500-EB-15-530 with effect from 16.09.1985. In said Writ Petition No. 723/2008, the petitioner Shri Thomas Fernandes had produced the Pay Sanction Order dated 03.04.1991 issued by the Director of Education as Annexure 'C' which clearly shows that the pay scale of Shri Thomas Fernandes was sanctioned at Rs. 290-10-350-EB-12-410-EB-15-500 revised to Rs.330-10-350-EB-380-15-500-EB-15-530, with effect from 16.09.1985. Hence, the pay of Shri Thomas Fernandes in the scale of 330-530 was not revised with effect from 03.03.1983, as contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. In Writ Petition No. 723/2008, the learned Division Bench of this Court has not held that Thomas Fernandes is entitled to the revision of pay in the scale of Rs. 330-530, as from 03.03.1983. 23. In view of the above, the plaintiffs are not entitled to revised pay scale of Rs.330-530 as from 03.03.1983. 24. The next question for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to TBPS in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. 25. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have been granted TBPS scale of Rs.1350-2200. They claim TBPS scale of Rs.1400-2300 as granted to the Laboratory Assistants of Government Engineering College, as per the order dated 08/10.06.1994. No doubt as per the said order, the Laboratory Assistants of College of Engineering, Goa, in the scale of Rs.1200-2040, have been granted TBPS in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. The evidence on record establishes that the post of Laboratory Assistant in Goa Engineering College has promotional avenues. DW1, Shri Michael D'Souza, in Regular Civil Suit No.146/1997/B (old), has stated that in Goa Engineering College, the Laboratory Assistants have promotional avenues and therefore, they are granted TBPS in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. The order dated 08/10.06.1994 applies only to the College of Engineering, Goa and was issued by the Principal of the said College. DW1, Shri Michael D'Souza, in Regular Civil Suit No.146/1997/B (old), has stated that in Goa Engineering College, the Laboratory Assistants have promotional avenues and therefore, they are granted TBPS in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. The order dated 08/10.06.1994 applies only to the College of Engineering, Goa and was issued by the Principal of the said College. DW1, Shri Michael D'Souza has stated that sanction of scale in case of employees in Farmagudi Engineering College is approved by the Government but whether a particular scale is to be given to an employee, is for the concerned authority to decide and the file does not go to the Government for approval. The Laboratory Assistants working in Government College of Engineering, Farmagudi are not connected with the Directorate of Education but are under the Directorate of Technical Education. The said order dated 08/10.06.1994 clearly says that this has been done on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee and in terms of Office Memorandum No. 1-1-82-PER(Part) dated 05.07.1989 read with Office Memorandum of even number dated 22.12.1989. A perusal of Annexure-I to the Office Memorandum No. 1-1-82-PER(Part) dated 22.12.1989, which is a statement indicating TBPS scale in respect of employees who do not possess the requisite qualification for the promotional post and posts which do not have promotional avenues, reveals that the TBPS scale for the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 ought to be Rs. 1350-2200. The Plaintiffs had no promotional avenues and there was no question of recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee with regard to them. The plaintiffs never claimed that the calculation done in said Annexure-I, thereby fixing the TBPS scale, is wrong. Thus, as has been rightly held by the trial Court, the plaintiffs have been rightly granted TBPS in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200. The plaintiffs cannot claim TBPS in terms of the said order dated 08/10.06.1994, which pertains to the Laboratory Assistants of the Goa Engineering College. 26. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, during the course of arguments, produced before this Court a copy of the Order No. 8/1/93-FIN(R&C)/P.C. dated 31.07.1996 allegedly issued by the Finance (Rev. & Cont.) Dept. of the Government of Goa, by which the pay scales of existing employees have been temporarily upgraded, pending decisions on the basis of Fifth Central Pay Commission Report. Inter alia, the existing pay scale as per Fourth Pay Commission of Rs.1200-2040 has been upgraded to Rs. 1400-2300. & Cont.) Dept. of the Government of Goa, by which the pay scales of existing employees have been temporarily upgraded, pending decisions on the basis of Fifth Central Pay Commission Report. Inter alia, the existing pay scale as per Fourth Pay Commission of Rs.1200-2040 has been upgraded to Rs. 1400-2300. First of all, the above Order dated 31.07.1996 was neither relied upon nor produced in evidence in any of the suits by the plaintiffs. Secondly, it pertains to upgradation of Pay Scale as per the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, pending the decisions on the basis of Fifth Central Pay Commission. Lastly the said fixation was only temporary. The same cannot be looked into. 27. Hence the plaintiffs have not proved that they are entitled for TBPS in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. 28. In the result, both the above appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.