JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 7.3.2008 passed in WP(C)No. 804 of 2005. 2. The respondent was appointed as a Manager (Senior) in Imphal Hotel (Section) which is a Government Hotel under the control of Tourism Department, Govt. of Manipur. The post of Manager (Senior) was upgraded to class-I post as Senior Manager in the scale of Rs.2000-3500/- (Pre revised) which is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director under the Government of Manipur. Consequent upon upgradation of the post of Manager Senior to Senior Manager, the post of Manager (Senior) got abolished. The Govt. of Manipur framed a set of rules called, “Tourism Department, Manipur (Senior Manager) (Hotel Imphal) Recruitment Rules, 1988” vide Notification dated 21.5.1998. Under the said rules, Senior Manager (Hotel Imphal) is a class-I gazetted post. On the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission, the respondent was appointed on promotion to the post of Senior Manager vide order of the Government dt. 27.10.1998. The Govt. of Manipur, in exercise of its powers conferred under Art.309 of the Constitution of India, framed another set of rules called, “Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1999.” Under the said Rules, pay scales of various posts under the Government of Manipur were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. But the post of Senior Manager (Imphal Hotel) was left out. Some other posts under the Govt. in different departments had also been left out. Therefore, the Govt. of Manipur in the Finance Department (Pay Implementation Cell) issued an Office Memorandum on 9.8.1999 to clarify the absence of number of posts in the said rules which took with effect from 1.1.1996 stating therein that those posts which were in existence as on 1.1.1996 find place in the Rules and those posts which came into existence after 1.1.1996, a separate administrative order is to be issued. 3. The case of the respondent was that as the post of Senior Manager came into existence because of upgradation vide order dated 6.11.1997, the said post did not find place in the 1999 Revised Pay Rules. Accordingly, he made a representation to revise his pay and include the post of Senior Manager in the lists of posts included in the 1999 rules. The said representation having not been considered, the respondent filed W.P(C)No. 775 of 2002 in the High Court seeking for revision of pay. Accordingly, he made a representation to revise his pay and include the post of Senior Manager in the lists of posts included in the 1999 rules. The said representation having not been considered, the respondent filed W.P(C)No. 775 of 2002 in the High Court seeking for revision of pay. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8.7.2002 directing the respondent to file a fresh representation to the concerned authority enclosing copies of the earlier representations and the connected documents and further directed the present appellants to consider the representation and dispose of the same. In spite of the above order, the representation of the respondent was not disposed of for which he had to approach the Court again in W.P(C)No. 257 of 2004. The Court, after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 28.5.2004. Relevant portion of the judgment, in the said case, is quoted below:- “Para 4. It is, further clarified by the petitioner that his case is not a case of pay anomaly, but simple case for prescribing appropriate revised scale of pay as per the accepted norms and office memorandum issued by the government from time to time.” “Para 5. It is also brought to the notice of the court that under similar circumstances, government has already issued orders and some of the instances of the same orders may be seen as on Annexure A/9 and A/10 etc.” “Para 6. Md. Jalal Uddin, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents was asked to obtain necessary instructions as counter was not filed yet and he obtained the same. It is submitted by the learned G.A. on the basis of instructions received from the Govt. that there is no dispute in so far the contention of the petitioner is concerned and accordingly the court may pass appropriate orders as the court may think fit and proper.” “Para 7. It is conceded by the respondents as per the instructions that post of Senior Manager is equivalent to M.C.S. Grade II of which pre-revised scale of pay was Rs.2000-3,500/- and the corresponding revised scale of pay is Rs.8,000- 13,500/- as per ROP 1999. Therefore, I find that there is hardly any dispute in so far the contention of the petitioner and the reply of the respondents are concerned and thus the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly.” “Para 8. Therefore, I find that there is hardly any dispute in so far the contention of the petitioner and the reply of the respondents are concerned and thus the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly.” “Para 8. In the result, it is hereby directed that the concerned government authority will take necessary steps by issuing appropriate orders so that the petitioner may be entitled to the appropriate pay scale under ROP 1999 with effect from the date he came to occupy his present post. The exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” “Para 9. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.” 4. After the above order was passed, the Government of Manipur issued the impugned order dated 20.5.2005 revising pay scale of the Senior Manager to 6,500- 10,500/- w.e.f. 6.11.1998. Challenging the said order dated 20.5.2005, the respondent again approached this Court in W.P(C)No. 804 of 2005 out of which this appeal arises. 5. The learned Single Judge took note of the earlier judgment delivered by the Court on 28.5.2004 in W.P(C) No. 257 of 2004 and held that in view of the concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the present appellants, the prayer of the petitioner should have been allowed and consequently set aside the order dated 20.5.2005 and directed the present appellant to revise the pay scale of the respondent at Rs.8000-13,500/-. 6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. A.G., challenging the said order, submitted that the concession of the State counsel at the time of hearing of WP(C)No. 257 of 2004 was without any authority and the Government is not bound by such concession. It was further submitted that after judgment was delivered in the said writ petition, the matter was examined by the Government and it was found that the respondent is entitled to revision of pay in the scale of Rs.6,500- 10,500/- w.e.f. 6.11.1998 and accordingly the said order dated 20.5.2005 was passed. 7. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Addl. A.G. for the reason that on the basis of the concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the present appellants, W.P(C)No. 257 of 2004 was disposed of in the manner quoted above. The said judgment was not challenged by the appellants either in Review or appeal and accordingly it attained finality. A.G. for the reason that on the basis of the concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the present appellants, W.P(C)No. 257 of 2004 was disposed of in the manner quoted above. The said judgment was not challenged by the appellants either in Review or appeal and accordingly it attained finality. Now, it is no more open for the appellants to challenge that judgment having attained its finality. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, relied upon earlier judgment of the Court, as quoted above and allowed the writ petition. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and accordingly find no merit in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.