JUDGMENT & ORDER : The pleadings of the parties and the issues involved in all the writ petitions were identical and so on the prayer of the learned counsel of the parties all the three writ petitions were heard together and this common judgment is passed which shall govern all the cases. WP(C) No.147 of 2016 is taken as lead case. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioners and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondents. 3. Sri Radheshyam Bin, petitioner of WP(C) No.147 of 2016, Sri Swapan Das, petitioner of WP(C) No.148 of 2016 and Sri Partha Singha Roy, since deceased, the predecessor of substituted petitioners of WP(C) No.149 of 2016(hereinafter mentioned as petitioners), along with another Sri Dinesh Chandra Debnath, filed WP(C) No.24 of 2006 in the Agartala Bench of the then Gauhati High Court and that writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 10.12.2013 passed by this Court with following directions: “21. In view of the discussions made above, I find force in the writ petition and accordingly, it is allowed to the extent as follows :- (i) Memo dated 27.09.2005 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is set aside and quashed. (ii) The movement of the petitioners to the next graded scale on their completion of 10 years of service as per Rules of 1988 was rightly made and the prayer of the petitioners that they are entitled to get it on their completion of 8 years of service stands rejected. (iii) The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the higher graded scale according to the Rules of 1999 and the respondents are directed to provide them the benefit of the next graded scale as per the Rules of 1999.” 4. By filing the present set of writ petitions it is alleged by the petitioners that the respondents did not fully comply the above direction given by this Court in WP(C) No.24 of 2006 and that by issuing office Order No.48 dated 31.03.2014(Annexure-P4 to the writ petition) the respondents pursuant to the judgment cancelled Memo. dated 27.09.2005 and further by issuing office Order No.65 dated 22.05.2014(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) the respondents allowed 3rd Assured Career Progression(ACP-3) to the petitioners on their completion of 25 years of service but did not give them the benefit of 2nd ACP in terms of the judgment. dated 27.09.2005 and further by issuing office Order No.65 dated 22.05.2014(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) the respondents allowed 3rd Assured Career Progression(ACP-3) to the petitioners on their completion of 25 years of service but did not give them the benefit of 2nd ACP in terms of the judgment. It is alleged by the petitioners that the respondents virtually committed contempt of Court but the petitioners have chosen to file fresh writ petitions to get a fresh and clear direction in respect of the 2nd ACP to which they were entitled. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were appointed in the post of Helper under the respondents on 25.11.1987 in the pay scale of Rs.370-650/-. ROP Rules, 1988 published on 16.09.1988 came into effect w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and the pay scale of Rs.370-650/- was revised to Rs.800-1520/-. As per ROP Rules, 1988 graded scale No.12 was prescribed for the post of Helper which reads as follows: GRADED SCALE NO.12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Helper with various designations 400-775 370-650 330-460 340-530 Senior Helper Helper Grade-I Helper Grade-II 400-775 370-650 340-530 850-2130 800-1520 775-1130 6. In Part-C of Schedule-III of ROP Rules, 1988, Note No.2, prescribed movement of a Government servant from lowest graded scale to the successive higher post/graded scale on their completion of 10 years of service and again after 8 years of service i.e. 18 years of service. It is an admitted position that as per the said provision, on completion of 10 years of service they were given the next higher graded scale of Rs.850-2130/- w.e.f. 25.11.1997. By filing the earlier writ petition the petitioners contended that they were directly appointed as Helper in the pay scale of Rs.370-650/- which was revised as Rs. 800-1520/- as per ROP Rules, 1988 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and that was the intermediate scale as prescribed in graded scale No.12 and so they were entitled to get the next graded scale after 8 years of service. That prayer of the petitioners was not allowed by this Court which has been reflected in para 21 of the judgment dated 10.12.2013. 7. The petitioners in their earlier writ petitions claimed that they were entitled to three scale advancement as per ROP Rules, 1999. Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 prescribed scale advancement(ACP) on completion of 10 years, 7 years and 7 years of continuous and satisfactory service without promotion. 7. The petitioners in their earlier writ petitions claimed that they were entitled to three scale advancement as per ROP Rules, 1999. Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 prescribed scale advancement(ACP) on completion of 10 years, 7 years and 7 years of continuous and satisfactory service without promotion. It was clearly mentioned in para 21 of the judgment dated 10.12.2013 that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of higher graded scale according to the Rules of 1999. That judgment was not challenged by the respondents. According to the respondents they have given the 3rd ACP as per ROP Rules, 2009 to the petitioners in compliance of the judgment dated 10.12.2013 but nothing is stated as to why the 2nd CAS or ACP has not been given. 8. It is an admitted position that Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 prescribed Career Advancement Scheme(CAS) w.e.f. 01.01.1999 on completion of 10 years, 7 years and 7 years of continuous and satisfactory service without promotion. Correspondingly under Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 2009 Assured Career Progression(ACP) was prescribed on completion of 10 years, 7 years and 8 years of service. The respondents in the earlier writ petition had taken a stand that the petitioners were given the intermediate scale of graded scale No.12 of ROP Rules, 1988 and since they were already given the intermediate scale, it should be presumed that they have enjoyed one scale advancement at the time of their appointment itself and so they were not entitled to three scale advancement as prescribed in ROP Rules, 1999. That stand of the respondents was rejected by clear finding made by this Court in judgment dated 10.12.2013. The observation made by this Court in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment may be quoted here which read as follows : “17. Indisputably, the petitioners were appointed in the post of Helper in the year 1987 in the pre-revised scale of Rs.370-650/-. The respondents did not take any step to say that the said appointment in the scale of Rs.370-650/- was wrongly made and no corrective measure was taken. While that appointment in that pre-revised scale stands good, after rules of 1988 came into force, they were naturally entitled to the corresponding scale and the respondents also provided them the corresponding scale of Rs.800-1520/- which is the intermediate scale of graded scale No.12 meant for the post of Helper. While that appointment in that pre-revised scale stands good, after rules of 1988 came into force, they were naturally entitled to the corresponding scale and the respondents also provided them the corresponding scale of Rs.800-1520/- which is the intermediate scale of graded scale No.12 meant for the post of Helper. Note No.2 Clause (f) of Part-C (Schedule-III) of the Rules of 1988 prescribes that no new appointment under any of these categories of posts shall be made at a level than the lowest provided that appointment may, under special circumstances, be made at any level than the lowest subject to the condition that a vacant post at the lowest level is available, in which case the lowest level post shall get automatically converted into the post of the required level to which the appointment is made. 18. As already stated earlier, the respondents never came out with any correction that the appointment of the petitioners in the post of Helper in intermediate scale was wrongly made or made inadvertently. The provisions of Rules of 1988 only restricted new appointment and indisputably the petitioners were appointed on 25.11.1987 and ROP Rules came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1986 thereafter. Since the respondents never came out with a correction to say that the pay scale given to the petitioners at the time of their initial appointment was wrong, the respondents cannot now come out with a stand referring to OM dated 22.06.1990 that the petitioners are not entitled to the highest graded scale before 18 years of their service. According to Note 2 (a) (i) a Government servant holding the post in the lowest post/grade shall be allowed to move to the first higher post/grade on completion of 10 years of service in the lowest post/grade. So, the respondents rightly allowed the petitioners the next graded scale on their completion of 10 years of service. The claim of the petitioners that they were entitled to get the next graded scale on their completion of 8 years of service is not acceptable since they cannot claim both approbate and reprobate. 19. The petitioners have already been given the graded scale of pay of Rs.850-2130/- as per Rules of 1988 on their completion of 10 years of service. 19. The petitioners have already been given the graded scale of pay of Rs.850-2130/- as per Rules of 1988 on their completion of 10 years of service. In the meantime, Rules of 1999 came into force and the period of continuous and satisfactory service in respect of movement from one graded scale to another graded scale has been changed. As per the corresponding provisions of Rules of 1999 the petitioners were entitled to the next corresponding scale on their completion of 17 years of service and so on. The clarification contained in Annexure-R/4 (O.M. dated 22.06.1990), cannot be applied in the cases of the petitioners since the petitioners were directly recruited as Helper in the pre-revised scale of Rs.370-650/- and they were entitled to the corresponding graded scales as per the subsequent ROP Rules and the benefit in the next graded scale after completion of requisite services as prescribed in the Rules.” 9. While the respondents did not challenge that judgment, wherein it was clearly held that the petitioners were given first scale advancement as per ROP Rules, 1988 on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service without promotion, they were entitled to two more scale advancement as per ROP Rules, 1999. The respondents allowed the petitioners 3rd ACP by office Order dated 22.05.2014(Annexure-P5 to the writ petition) but stated nothing about the 2nd CAS or ACP in accordance with the provisions of ROP Rules, 1999 or ROP Rules, 2009 on their completion of the required years of satisfactory service without promotion. The petitioners also put on record the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) No.466 of 2011 in the case of Sri Bhabatosh Roy v. State of Tripura & Ors. wherein also the same issue was raised about the appointment of the petitioner of that writ petition in the intermediate scale and thereafter he was deprived of one scale advancement but the Court has held that the petitioner was entitled to three scale advancement according to the rules and the respondents complied that judgment as stated in para 23 of their counter affidavit. So the respondents cannot take a different stand in respect of the present petitioners. 10. Under ROP Rules, 1988 the petitioners got only one scale advancement on their completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 25.11.1997. Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 prescribes three scale advancements w.e.f. 01.01.1999. So the respondents cannot take a different stand in respect of the present petitioners. 10. Under ROP Rules, 1988 the petitioners got only one scale advancement on their completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 25.11.1997. Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 prescribes three scale advancements w.e.f. 01.01.1999. The petitioners already got one scale advancement under ROP Rules, 1988 on their completion of 10 years of service. Under ROP Rules 1999 they were entitled to second scale advancement on their completion of 7 years of service i.e. in total 17 years of satisfactory service. That second scale advancement(CAS) as prescribed under ROP Rules, 1999 was not given to the petitioners though it was clearly stipulated that the petitioners were entitled to get it as per ROP Rules, 1999. After ROP Rules, 2009 came into force the petitioners were entitled to 3rd ACP(third scale advancement) on their completion of 25 years of service without promotion and the respondents by Annexure-P5 i.e. office Order dated 22.05.2014 allowed them the 3rd ACP, whereas did not give them the benefit of second scale advancement(CAS). The petitioners should be given the second scale advancement(CAS) as per ROP Rules, 1999 and thereafter they should be given the 3rd ACP as per ROP Rules, 2009 according to their entitlement as prescribed under the corresponding ROP Rules. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to give the petitioners benefit of second scale advancement as per ROP Rules, 1999 and thereafter to give them the benefit of corresponding 3rd ACP as per ROP Rules, 2009 and accordingly to modify the office Order dated 22.05.2014(Annexure-P5 to the writ petition). 12. With the above direction all the writ petitions stand disposed of. The respondents are directed to comply the order within sixty days from today.