JUDGMENT & ORDER : This writ petition has its chequered history as the petitioner along with others filed previously another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.30 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following direction: “The respondent No.1 in the Finance Department shall examine the various aspects of implementation of Shetty Commission and the clarifications provided by the Supreme Court having due regard to the order dated 16.03.2015 delivered in I.A. No. 297, in I.A. No.71A and Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989 and thereafter issue necessary notification for all concerned till then no recovery from any judicial staff shall be made. If the judicial staff are entitled to get any arrears of pay that shall be paid to the concerned judicial staff as per the direction of the supreme court. (6). as corollary thereto and in view of the above direction the impugned order under No.F.6(44)-DJ/G/Acct./UDP/2007-14-2396-98 dated 18.11.2014, Annexure 18 to the writ petition and the impugned order under No.F.10(152)(b)-DJ/W/2007-14/10795-810 dated 01.12.2014, Annexure P/9 to the writ petition shall remain suspended subject to the outcome of the exercise as directed and to be carried out by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura.” 2. Now by means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notification under No.F.3(2)-Fin(PC)/93(P-III) dated 10.09.2015 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] and urged for a direction for applying the revised pay structure in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission on the pay structure as introduced on recommendation of the Shetty Commission and in conformity with the clarificatory order dated 16.03.2015 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition]. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by ‘the derivative’ interpretation of the said order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the apex court. The interpretation is a clear deviation, according to the petitioner, from the said order dated 16.03.2015. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by ‘the derivative’ interpretation of the said order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the apex court. The interpretation is a clear deviation, according to the petitioner, from the said order dated 16.03.2015. In the said order there is no reference to the modified pay structure under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 despite that the Finance Department while issuing the notification dated 10.09.2015 has observed and sought to implement as under: “In view of the direction of Hon’ble High Court dated 26.03.2015, in W.P.(C) No.30 of 2015 to examine various aspects of Shetty Commission’s Report and the clarification provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court having due regard to the order dated 16-03-2015 in I.A. Nos.297 & 71A in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989 and in continuation of this Department’s earlier Notification of even number dated 23-05-2014 issued in this regard, after careful examination of the matter, the Governor is pleased to order that the benefits shall be provided to the staff of the sub-ordinate judiciary under the modified revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2015 over the benefits already allowed w.e.f. 01.04.2003 as per recommendations of the Shetty Commission. The pay scale/structure of different categories of posts/upgraded posts as on 01.04.2003 as recommended by the Shetty Commission along with the revised pay scale/structure of the posts w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in respect of the staff of the Sub-ordinate Judiciary is given in a tabular format as below: Name of the posts Existing pay scale as on 31.03.2004 (in Rs.) Pay scale/modified pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2005 as per recommendations of the Shetty Commission (in Rs.) Revised pay structure as on 01.01.2006 under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2015 Pay Band Pay Band Scale (in Rs.) Grade Pay (in Rs.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Private Secretary Gr.I 12000-18400 12000-18400 PB-4 15600-39100 7600 Private Secretary Gr.II 10650-15850 10650-15850 PB-4 15600-39100 6800 Private Secretary Gr.III 10000-15100 10000-15100 PB-4 15600-39100 6600 Private Secretary Gr.IV 7450-13000 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Personal Assistant-I 6500-12300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Personal Assistant-II 4200-8650 4200-8650 PB-2 5700-24000 2800 Accounts Officer 7450-13000 7800-15100 PB-4 15600-39100 5400 Sr. Sheristadar 6500-12300 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Sheristadar (Head Clerk Grade) Sr. Div. Sheristadar 6500-12300 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Sheristadar (Head Clerk Grade) Sr. Div. Court 5000-10300 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Office Superintendent 6500-12300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Bench Clerk (Head Clerk Grade) 5000-10300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Sheristadar (Head Clerk Grade) Jr. Div. Court 5000-10300 5000-10300 PB-2 5700-24000 4200 Head Clerk 5000-10300 5000-10300 PB-2 5700-24000 4200 Bench Clerk UDC Grade 4200-8650 5000-10300 PB-2 5700-24000 4200 Upper Division Clerk 4200-8650 4200-8650 PB-2 5700-24000 2800 Bench Clerk LDC Grade) 3300-7100 4200-8650 PB-2 5700-24000 2800 Lower Division Clerk 3300-7100 3300-7100 PB-2 5700-24000 2200 Driver 3300-7100 3300-7100 PB-2 5700-24000 2200 Bailiff ……… 3300-7100 PB-2 5700-24000 2200 Record Arranger 3050-5910 3050-5910 PB-2 5700-24000 2000 Duplicating Operator 3050-5910 3050-5910 PB-2 5700-24000 2000 Process Server 2750-4925 2900-5660 PB-1 4840-13000 1900 Duftry 2750-4925 2700-4925 PB-1 4840-13000 1800 Group-D (Peon/Orderly/Night Guard/Dry-cum-Wet Sweeper 2600-3545 2600-3545 PB-1 4840-13000 1400 2. An employee of Sub-ordinate Judiciary in service as on 31-03-2003 holding a particular post mentioned in Column I of the table below Para 1 with the corresponding scale of pay as in Column 2 shall be provided with one advance increment in that scale of pay on 01-04-2003 and thereafter, his/her pay shall be fixed in the appropriate stage of the relevant pay scale/modified pay scale mentioned in Column 3 thereof on 01-04-2003 and regulated up to 31-12-2005 under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. 3. Further, his/her pay shall be re-fixed in the modified revised pay structure under the corresponding Pay Band, Pay Band Scale and Grade Pay specified in Column 4, 5 and 6 respectively of the table on 01-01-2006 or on the date of option already exercised for coming over to the revised pay structure as per provision of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2015 vide Notification No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2012 (P-I) dated 31-03-2015 and re-regulated thereon under the rules ibid. 4. Allowances such as Medical Allowance, Special Allowance, Travelling Allowance and Special Pay shall also be admissible to the staff of the Sub-ordinate Judiciary at rates and conditions applicable to the State Government employees in the equivalent ranks.” 4. 4. Allowances such as Medical Allowance, Special Allowance, Travelling Allowance and Special Pay shall also be admissible to the staff of the Sub-ordinate Judiciary at rates and conditions applicable to the State Government employees in the equivalent ranks.” 4. Before the fundamental question that, whether the notification dated 10.09.2015, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is in conformity or consistent with the order dated 16.03.2015 delivered in I.A. No.297, in I.A. No.71A in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022/1989 [All India Judges’ Association and others versus Union of India and others] or not is considered, this court deems it apposite to note the background of the claim as raised by the writ petitioner. The apex court in an unprecedented action asked the commission headed by Justice K. Jagannath Shetty which is known now as the ‘Shetty Commission’ to submit its report for improvement of the service condition of the judicial staffs. From the order dated 07.02.2009 delivered in I. A. No.71A etc. from writ petition No.1022 of 1989 it would appear that pursuant to the order dated 17.12.1997 and 07.01.1999 the Shetty Commission Report was submitted in March 2003 where it was emphasized that improvement in the service condition of the judicial staff is necessary for the administration of justice and rule of law. After considering the submission made by the States/UTs/High Courts, the apex court accepted the Shetty Commission recommendations and passed various orders. Finally, on 15.07.2008 the apex court had observed and directed: “(i) The recommendations are reasonable and do not involve any financial burden. (ii) Decision to implement the recommendation by all states should be taken within a period of three months. (iii) The recommendation will be implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2003.” 5. Despite such directions it has been observed in the order dated 07.10.2009 that some of the states have implemented the recommendation but had given effect later than 01.04.2003. The grievances of the officers were subsisting. Hence, the apex court directed that henceforth ‘these matters’ would be considered by the respective high courts of the states/UTs. The apex court had issued further directions which are as under: “(i) The High Courts, on judicial/administrative side, will ensure implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission within a reasonable period of one year. The High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may be filed by the individual or staff association representing the various members of the staff. The High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may be filed by the individual or staff association representing the various members of the staff. (ii) The High Courts shall also see that the recommendations are implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003. (iii) There shall be benefit of one advance increment on the existing pay scale instead of initial pay scale. In many of the States, the same benefit has not been given to the members of the staff, the High Court should also see that these recommendations are implemented. (iv) In some of the States based on various other pay commissions Reports, benefits had been given to the members of the staff, these benefits, if any, given shall be in addition to the recommendations given by the Shetty Commission. In any case, if the members of the staff association/subordinate staff getting higher benefits under any of the recommendations of the pay commission/Government Orders, they shall be permitted to avail those benefits.” 6. There is no ambiguity in the direction (iv) that apex court was conscious of various pay commission reports and benefits were operating in some of the states. In unequivocal words, the apex court has directed that in any case if the members of the staff association/subordinate staff getting higher benefit under any of the recommendations of the pay commission/Government orders, they shall be permitted to avail those benefits. This direction is so express that no derivative or contrary meaning can be derived out of it. The meaning is simple and clear that the judicial staff shall get the pay scale as given by the Shetty Commission. If any State Government provides far better benefits that would be treated as additional to the benefit as recommended by the Shetty Commission. 7. It is noticeable from the order dated 15.07.2008 how the apex court dealt with the objection as to the financial difficulty in implementing those recommendations because it was urged that the State Governments are short of fund. The apex court has observed in their order dated 15.07.2008 in I.A. No.71A while making clarification of the order dated 22.01.2008 delivered in I.A. No.71A etc. as under: “We must say that the report was submitted on 31.3.2003 and we have been giving repeated directions to implement the recommendations but most of the States have not complied with. The apex court has observed in their order dated 15.07.2008 in I.A. No.71A while making clarification of the order dated 22.01.2008 delivered in I.A. No.71A etc. as under: “We must say that the report was submitted on 31.3.2003 and we have been giving repeated directions to implement the recommendations but most of the States have not complied with. The general objection of the State Governments is that there is difficulty in implementing these recommendations because the State Governments are short of funds. We do not think that by implementing the aforesaid recommendations, the State Governments will have to incur heavy financial burden since only reasonable recommendations have been made in the report and the States and Union Territories can look into these recommendations and take proper decision at the earliest, at least within a period of three months from today. We direct the States and Union Territories to file affidavits indicating the latest status on or before 20.10.2008. Before that the Registrar Generals of the concerned High Courts shall hold discussions with the State Governments and Union Territories in regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and take a final decision in the matter. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission.” 8. By the order dated 07.01.1998 the apex court requested the Shetty Commission to examine the service conditions of the staff of the subordinate court and make a report about the steps to be taken for improvement of the service condition of the judicial staff. Pursuant to the said order, the Shetty Commission took upon itself the task of the examining the following issues: “From the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court, it becomes clear that the Commission has to undertake the following: (i) To examine the service conditions of the Court Staff in each State/Union Territory and make a report (to the Supreme Court) about the steps, if any, required to be taken in each State/Union Territory for the improvement of their service conditions; (ii) To examine the facts and circumstances peculiar to any State/Union Territory placed before it by the concerned State/Union Territory; And (iii) To take note of the points of distinction, if any, between the States/Union Territories which may be relevant for the purpose of making the report.” 9. The Shetty Commission based on the materials collected, submitted its report and paraphrased the service conditions of different categories of employees working in different establishments and submitted separate reports for different States. The recommendations made by the Shetty Commission which are made for National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi was a sample which has been set out at page 274 of the recommendations: “Financial Estimate on the Recommendations State: NCT of Delhi (Centralised System) Category Existing Recommended Additional burden estimated per year as per existing cadre strength (Rs. In Lakhs) 1 2 3 4 Class-IV Medical Allowance Grant of Promotional Scale to Peons etc., of the Estt. Of Admn. Subordinate Judge Not being given Rs.2550-3200 To pay not less than Rs.100/- pm. Rs.2610-3540 17.59 Cannot be estimated now Drivers Spl. All –Nil- Spl. All. Of Rs. 150/- p.m. 2.09 Process Est. Process Servers Bailiffs TA to PS/Bailiffs Pay Scales Rs.2550-3200 Rs.2650-4000 Not being Paid Rs.2750-4400 Rs.3050-4590 Not less than Rs.200/- p.m. 3.07 0.42 9.60 Bench Clerks Reader Four Grades with pay scales: (i) Gr.IV-Rs.3050-4590 (ii) Gr.III-Rs.4000-6000 (iii) Gr.II-Rs.5000-8000 (iv) Gr.I-Rs.5500-9000 Three grades with pay scales: (i) Gr.III-Rs.4000-6000 (ii) Gr.II-Rs.5000-8000 (iii) Gr.I-Rs.5500-9000 0.10 Nil 2.88 Stenographers TA/Spl. Pay Four grades with Pay scales (i) Gr.III-Rs.4000-6000 (ii) Gr.II-Rs.5000-8000 (iii) Gr.I-Rs.5500-9000 (iv) Sr. P.A. –Rs.6500-10500 Not being paid Existing grades may be retained: One more Steno in the grade of Sr. P.A. to be provided to selection Grade Dist. Judges as E.A. (i) Working in NCT of Delhi Rs.150/- pm. (ii) Spl. Pay of Rs.200/- pm to EAs 21.06 9.54 0.65 Common Category Posts: (i) Superintendent (ii) Officer/Asst. Lib.cum-IO (iii)Asst./HC/Lib./HCL/Sr.Acct. (iv) Bench In-Charge/Asst. Suptd. (v) UDC/Eng.Cl/Record Keeper/Nazir/Etc. (vi) Court Asst./LDC/Insol. Cl/Ahlmed/Naib Nazir/Copyists etc., (vii) Steno Gr.III (viii) Steno Gr.II (ix) Steno Gr.I (x) Sr. P.A. In the pay scale of; Rs.10000-15200 Rs.6500-10500 Rs.5000-8000 Rs.4500-7000 Rs.4000-6000 Rs.3050-4590 Rs.4000-6000 Rs.5000-8000 Rs.5500-9000 Rs.6500-10500 One increment at the initial rate in the pay scale: Rs.325/- Rs.200/- Rs.150/- Rs.125/- Rs.100/- Rs.75/- Rs.100/- Rs.150/- Rs.175/- Rs.200/- 0.63 0.07 0.16 0.05 1.39 14.17 4.28 0.72 2.23 0.67 Total (Rs. In Lakhs): 91.37 Note: Additional budget required may be about Rs.91.37 lakhs which is exclusive of D.A., HRA, CCA and other allowances, if any.” 10. Wherever the Shetty Commission has tabulated the financial estimate on the recommendations in the report as has been noted and extracted that has been so done with reference to NCT of Delhi. In Lakhs): 91.37 Note: Additional budget required may be about Rs.91.37 lakhs which is exclusive of D.A., HRA, CCA and other allowances, if any.” 10. Wherever the Shetty Commission has tabulated the financial estimate on the recommendations in the report as has been noted and extracted that has been so done with reference to NCT of Delhi. Under chapter XVIII of the Shetty Commission Recommendations, the recommendations are relating to Tripura. At page 255 the Shetty Commission has recommended the revised pay scales which are as under: Sl. No. Existing Pay Scales (Rs.) Sl. No. Revised Pay Scales (Rs.) 1. 775-15-790-16-950-20-1130 1. 2600-55-2985-60-3285-65-3545 2. 800-20-960-25-1160-30-1520 2. 2650-65-3300-70-4350 3. 850-30-1090-35-1370-40-2130 3. 2750-70-3800-75-4925 4. 2900-75-3800-80-4760-90-5660 4. 950-35-1230-40-1550-45-2180 5. 3050-80-4010-90-4910-100-5910 5. 970-40-1290-45-1650-50-2400 6. 3200-90-4280-100-5480-110-6030 6. 1020-40-1260-45-1620-50-2620 7. 3300-100-4800-110-5900-120-7100 7. 1250-45-1710-50-2010-55-2890 8. 4000-110-5650-120-6850-130-7890 8. 1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220 9. 4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650 9. 1450-60-1930-65-2450-70-3710 10. 5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300 10. 1700-65-2220-70-2780-75-3980 11. 5500-150-7750-175-9500-200-10700 11. 2000-75-2750-80-3390-85-4410 12. 6500-200-10500-225-12300 12. 2100-75-2700-80-3340-85-4530 13. 7450-225-11500-250-13000 13(b) 2100-75-2250-80-2490-85-3000 (SL)-90-3720-4100-100-5000 14. 7800-275-10000-300-15100 13(b) 13(a) (SL) 3000-90-3720-4100-100-5000 3000-90-3720-95-4100-100-5000 15. 10000-300-15100 14. 3200-95-3960-100-4760-105-5600 16. 10650-325-15850 15. 3300-100-(SL)-3500-100-4000-110-5100-120-5700 17. 11000-350-18000 16. 3500-100-4000-110-5100-120-5700 18. 11150-375-18275 17. 3600-130-4900-150-5800 19. 12000-400-18400 18. 4000-140-4700-150-5900 20. 14150-450-20000 19. 5900-200-6700 21. 18400-500-22400 11. Even at page 256 of the said recommendations against the categories of posts and existing pay scales the Shetty Commission recommended pay scales which are shown below with the financial liabilities: Financial Estimate on the Recommendations Category Existing Recommended Additional burden estimated per year as per existing cadre strength (Rs. In lakhs) 1 2 3 4 Group-D Process Est: (i) Process Servers Only one cadre : Rs.2750-4925/- Cadre not existing Two cadres to be restructured : Rs.2900-5660/- Rs.3300-7100/- 0.54 Existing cadre to be restructured. So cannot be estimated. (ii) Bailiffs (iii) TA to both the above cadres Not given FTA not less than Rs.200/- pm. 1.34 Drivers Spl. All.-Nil Spl. All. of Rs.150/- pm. 0.31 Bench Clerks Three grades Three grades (i) Court of CJ (Jr. Dn) (i) In the status of L.D. Clerk Rs.3050-4500/- Grade-III-Rs.4200-8650/- Cannot be estimated stage. These posts are to be readjusted from the existing cadre and additional posts are to be created. (ii) Court of CJ (Sr. Dn) (ii) U.D Clerk Rs.4200-8650/- Grade-II-Rs.5000-10300/- (iii) Court of DJ (iii) Head Clerk Rs.5000-10300/- Grade-I-Rs.6500-12300/- Stenographer (i) Grade & Pay Scales There are six grades Allowed as it is Nil (ii) TA to Stenos/PA Nil (i) Rs.100/- p.m. to those working in Tq/Dist. HQs. (ii) Court of CJ (Sr. Dn) (ii) U.D Clerk Rs.4200-8650/- Grade-II-Rs.5000-10300/- (iii) Court of DJ (iii) Head Clerk Rs.5000-10300/- Grade-I-Rs.6500-12300/- Stenographer (i) Grade & Pay Scales There are six grades Allowed as it is Nil (ii) TA to Stenos/PA Nil (i) Rs.100/- p.m. to those working in Tq/Dist. HQs. (ii) Rs.150/- p.m. to those working in the cities. (iii) Rs.200/- p.m. as Spl. Allowance to PS to PDSJ. Cannot be estimated unless the strength of Stenos in these categories are identified. Head Clerk CAO Same pay scale to both the Head Clerks working in the Court of C.J. (Jr. Dn.) and the Court of CJ (Sr. Dn.) Rs.5000-10300/- (i) H.C. of the court of C.J.(Jr. Dn.) designated as Sheristadar Rs.5000-10300/-. (ii) H.C. of the court of C.J.(Sr. Dn.) designated as Sr. Sheristadar Rs.7450-13000/-. Nil Estimate cannot be made unless cadre strength is fixed. (i) Accounts Officer Pay Scale Rs.7450-13000/- Both Accounts Officer and Sr. Sheristadar posts to be up-graded to the pay scale of Rs.7800-275-10000-300-15100/- 0.14 (ii) Sr. Sheristadar Pay Scale Rs.6500-12300/- Common Category Posts In the Pay Scale of: One Increment at the initial rate in the pay scale: (i) Office Suptd. Rs.6500-12300/- Rs.200/- p.m. 0.07 (ii) Head Clerks Rs.5000-10300/- Rs.130/- p.m. 1.14 (iii) L-cum-S. Asst./UDC Rs.4200-8650/- Rs.120/- p.m. 0.79 (iv) LDC Rs.3300-7100/- Rs.100/- p.m. 2.71 (v) Stenos. Jr. Gr. to Spl. Asst. & Ex. Jt. Secretary grades. Six different grades with existing pay scales Rs.120/- to Rs.400/- respectively. 1.16 Total (Rs. In Lakhs) 8.20 Note : Additional budged required may be about Rs.8.20 lakhs which is exclusive of D.A., H.R.A, CCA and other allowances, if any. 12. From a comparison between the pay scale as per recommendation of the Shetty Commission and that has been provided by the notification dated 10.09.2015, Annexure-3, it would be apparent that the State Government has implemented the recommendation of the Shetty Commission and such scales have been regulated upto 31.05.2005 and thereafter from 01.01.2006 or on the date of option, the judicial staffs were provided with revised pay structure as per provisions of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (12th Amendment) Rules, 2015 vide notification No.F.6(1)-Fin(PC)/2012(P-1) dated 31.02.2015 and re-regulated thereupon. It has been further provided by the said notification dated 10.09.2015 that allowances such as medical allowance, special allowance, travelling allowance and special pay shall also be admissible to the staff of the subordinate judiciary at the rate and conditions as applicable to the State Government employees in the equivalent rank. 13. The controversy raised in this writ petition arises from revision of the pay scales of the staff of the subordinate judiciary under the revised pay structure as per the TSCS(RP)(12th Amendment) Rules, 2015. The petitioner has urged by this writ petition to strike down that part of the notification as issued by the Finance Department on 10.09.2015 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and to provide the petitioner the pay scale in terms of the paragraph 20 of the order dated 16.03.2015 delivered in I.A. No.279 in I.A. No.71A (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Para 20 of the said order dated 16.03.2015 provides as under: “20. In the light of our above conclusion, we direct as under: i. Such of those States other than the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam, Punjab and Haryana and West Bengal, wherever the Shetty Commission has tabulated the financial estimate on the recommendations in the report as has been noted and extracted with reference to NCT of Delhi wherein any special allowance, medical allowance TA/special pay were directed to be given on monthly basis, such payment should be continued to be made w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and even after the coming into effect of the 6th Pay Commission recommendation from 01.01.2006 till any modification or revision is made with reference to such allowances/TA/special pay in any future Pay Commission recommendation of the State or Centre. ii. Wherever under the Shetty Commission recommendation, a higher scale of pay is recommended in the said tabular format for any category of employees apart from applying such higher scale of pay for the period 01.04.2003 up to 31.12.2005 as from 01.01.2006, l the corresponding revision should be only with reference to such higher pay scale recommended and made applicable to those categories of employees as revised under the 6th Pay Commission Report and which came to be implemented from 01.01.2006. Instead of adopting the said manner of payment, if any of the States had resorted to the revised pay-scale corresponding to the scale of pay which was existing prior to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission Report, the States are hereby directed to rectify such defect and calculate the revised pay-scale on the above footing as directed by us, work out the difference payable to those categories of employees payable from 01.01.2006 and effect such a payment with effect from the month of April, 2015 payable in May, 2015. The arrears of the difference payable for the past period ending with March, 2015 should be paid in one lump sum or in installments, in any case within nine months from the date of this judgment i.e. on or before 31.12.2015. iii. Insofar as one advance increment which was recommended by the Shetty Commission for all the common category posts for whom no other scale of pay other than what was existing, is concerned, as directed by this Court in the order dated 07.10.2009, if such advance increment had been paid based on the existing pay-scale, there is no need for making any further payment on that account. It is needless to state that if for any reason, such advance increment on the existing pay-scale has been omitted to be paid in those cases the concerned State Government should effect the payment as directed in our order dated 07.10.2009. iv. It is reiterated that the above direction in regard to the implementation of 6th Pay Commission recommendation will hold good even for implementation of any future pay Commission recommendation. v. Whatever pending applications before the High Court on the administrative side or on the judicial side shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously preferably within three months.” [Emphasis added] 14. Thus it transpires that the petitioner has given emphasis on the direction of the apex court as contained in the para-20 (iv) for getting the benefit and advantages of the revised pay structures which according to the petitioner is a mandate of the apex court. Thus it transpires that the petitioner has given emphasis on the direction of the apex court as contained in the para-20 (iv) for getting the benefit and advantages of the revised pay structures which according to the petitioner is a mandate of the apex court. That apart, in the para-20(i), the apex court has observed that the system that has been introduced in terms of the Shetty Commission’s recommendation shall continue ‘even after coming into effect of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations from 01.01.2006 till any modification or revision is made with reference to such allowances/TA/special pay in any future pay commission recommendation of the State or the Centre’. Again in para-20(ii) as extracted above, the apex court has stated that wherever under the Shetty Commission recommendation, a higher scale of pay is recommended in the said tabular format for any category of employees, apart from applying such higher scale of pay for the period from 01.04.2003 upto 31.12.2005, from 01.01.2006, the corresponding revision should be only with reference to such higher pay scale recommended and made applicable to those categories of employees under the 6th Pay Commission report and which came to be implemented from 01.01.2006. Thereafter, a specific observation/direction has been made that instead of adopting the said mode of payment, if any of the State had resorted to the revised pay scale corresponding to the scale of pay which was existing prior to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission report, the State shall rectify such defect and calculate the revised pay scale in terms of 6th Pay Commission report, workout the difference payable to those categories of employee from 01.01.2006. Further it has been directed that the arrears of difference, payable for the period ending with March 2015, should be paid in one lump sum or in installments in any case within nine months from the date of that judgment i.e. before 31.12.2015. 15. As noticed by this court before issuing such directions in the form of the order dated 16.03.2015 delivered in I.A. No. 297 in I.A. No. 71A in Writ Petition (Civil) 1022 of 1989, the apex court has recorded the background for considering grievances of the employees of subordinate judiciary which pertain to scale of pay with certain other benefits like medical allowance, special allowance and special increment which are recommended in the Shetty Commission report. The apex court has sought to protect the benefits unequivocally by the said order. In the para 13 of the said order, having due regard to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the previous order dated 07.10.2009, it has been observed as under: “We could discern from the elaborate submissions made before us that the applicant seek a direction to grant the appropriate revised 6th Pay Commission recommendation to the corresponding pre-revised scale recommended by Shetty Commission wherever such recommendation was made as was approved by this court in the order dated 07.10.2009 apart from certain other benefits such as medical allowance/special allowance/TA/Spl. Pay and one increment”. 16. Having analyzed the records so placed, the apex court was persuaded to hold that various State Governments had misconstrued that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission by taking position that it would come to an end on 31.12.2005 and that from 01.01.2006 they could revert back to the revised pay scale applicable to the original pay scale. The apex court has observed that by the order dated 07.10.2009 it was directed to implement the recommendations of the Shetty Commission as has been set out in the tabulated format in each of its report but the State Governments as stated have misunderstood the direction and considered that the recommendation to operate only between 01.04.2003 and 31.12.2005 and from 01.01.2006 the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission with respect to the various pay scales corresponding to the scales that existed prior to the Shetty Commission recommendation should operate. In para-16 again the apex court has made it clear in no uncertain terms as under: “16. In para-16 again the apex court has made it clear in no uncertain terms as under: “16. It has, therefore, become necessary for us to make it clear that wherever in the Shetty Commission recommendation, depending upon the nature of job performed by different categories of employees, a higher scale of pay came to be recommended in the pre-existing scale that existed prior to 6th Pay Commission recommendation and on such higher pay scale the corresponding revised scale of pay in the 6th Pay Commission recommendation as applicable from 01.01.2006, should have been continued and it was not permissible for the States to revert back to the earlier scale of pay that existed under the 5th Pay Commission which was directed to be improved in the Shetty Commission recommendation for; the purpose of applying the corresponding revised pay scale ;under the 6th Pay Commission recommendation.” 17. It is to be noted further that the scales as suggested by the Shetty Commission correspond to the existing pay scales under the 5th Central Pay Commission. As such, the apex court has directed to cause the revision of the pay scales as recommended by the Shetty Commission in the corresponding revised pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation. As a matter of abundant caution, in the para-17 of the said order the apex court has reiterated, having reference to the tabulated form in the paragraph-9, that after introduction of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the revised pay should only correspond to such higher scale of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission. When a different set of petitioners including the petitioner herein filed a writ petition for granting the employees of the subordinate judiciary the benefits of revision of pay scales under the 6th Central Pay Commission, this court by the judgment and order dated 26.03.2015 delivered in W.P.(C) No.30 of 2015 had occasion to direct the respondents in view of the order dated 16.03.2015 that the respondent No.1 in the Finance Department shall examine the various aspects of the implementation of the Shetty Commission’s Report and the clarifications provided by the Supreme Court having due regard to the order dated 16.03.2015 delivered in I.A. No.297 in I.A. No.71A in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989 and thereafter, issue necessary notification for all concerned. 18. 18. From a simple reading of the notification dated 10.09.2015, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it would be apparent that in view of the direction of this court in the judgment dated 26.03.2015 the Finance Department has issued the said notification providing the benefits to the staff of the subordinate judiciary under the modified revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as introduced by the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (12th Amendment) Rules, 2015 over the benefits as extended w.e.f. 01.04.2003 as per the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. The pay scale/pay structure of different categories of posts/upgraded posts as on 01.04.2003 as recommended by the Shetty Commission with corresponding revised pay scales/structures w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in respect of the staff of the subordinate judiciary have been shown in a tabular format in the said notification dated 10.09.2015 as reproduced hereinbefore. The petitioner has expressed his grievance that the Finance Department by the notification dated 10.09.2015 has clarified how they have implemented the Shetty Commission recommendations. The Finance Department has wrongly referred, according to the petitioner, to the said amendment Rules, 2015 inasmuch as by the order dated 16.03.2015, the apex court has in no uncertain terms declared that the fixation in the revised pay structure shall be made, as provided and according to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations. The petitioner has further urged this court to declare that the derivative meaning as culled out from the order dated 16.03.2015 in I.A. No.297 from I.A. No.71A, Annexure-2 to the writ petition is unsustainable and further to declare that the employees of the subordinate judiciary is entitled to get the revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. 19. The respondents by filing a brief counter affidavit on 11.02.2016 had claimed that due compliance of the order dated 16.03.2015 and the order of this court dated 26.03.2015 has been made and the benefits have been allowed to the employees of the subordinate judiciary of Tripura. The revised pay structure in terms of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (12th Amendment) Rules, 2015 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been given effect to on the pay scales/higher pay scales as recommended by the Shetty Commission. The revised pay structure in terms of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (12th Amendment) Rules, 2015 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been given effect to on the pay scales/higher pay scales as recommended by the Shetty Commission. In respect of the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation the respondents have stated in the para-9 of their counter affidavit as under: “The 6th CPC recommendations were not implemented in respect of employees of the State of Tripura due to its constrained financial resource position. The staffs of subordinate judiciary are covered under the ROP Rules issued by the State Government time to time.” 20. It has been further asserted that “It is not mandatory for the State Government to accept the 6th CPC recommendations in toto”. Hence, the petitioner as an employee of the subordinate judiciary in Tripura cannot claim such benefit at all. It has been asserted at the fag end of the paragraph-9 as under: “Further from comparison of the pay structure as per 6th CPC recommendation and ROP 2015, it would be clear that the State Government employees are comparatively in receipt of higher basic pay (pay in pay band + grade pay) then those of Central Government employees. In case of staffs of subordinate judiciary, such benefit is far much higher than that of the State Government employees because they are entitled to financial benefit from 01-04-2004 whereas the State Government employees are in receipt of financial benefit from 01-04-2015”. 21. From the rival contentions the following questions fall for consideration of this court. (i) Whether the apex court by the said order dated 16.03.2015 has directed the State Government/Union Territories to give the revised pay structure on the upgraded pay structure as recommended by the Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation with all other benefits or not? (ii) Whether the financial constraint can be considered as a tenable ground for denying the said benefits in this context, if it is decided that the employees of the subordinate judiciary in Tripura is entitled to the benefit of the revised pay structure of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006? (ii) Whether the financial constraint can be considered as a tenable ground for denying the said benefits in this context, if it is decided that the employees of the subordinate judiciary in Tripura is entitled to the benefit of the revised pay structure of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006? (iii) Whether the employees of the subordinate judiciary of Tripura is entitled to the arrear benefits, meaning the difference of pay and allowances, if the employees of the subordinate judiciary is considered to be entitled to the revised pay structure in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006? 22. Before responding to these questions it is to be noted that the apex court has clearly spelt out that no less pay can be given to the employees of the subordinate judiciary beyond what has been recommended by the Shetty Commission and what has been ordered by the apex court. However, the employees of the subordinate judiciary will be allowed to draw higher benefits if such benefit accrues from the revised pay structure introduced by the respective State Governments/UT administrations as additional benefits. Another aspect may be recorded that by and large, the respondents have implemented the Shetty Commission recommendations so far the pre-revised phase i.e. till 31.12.2005 is concerned. (i) WHETHER THE APEX COURT BY THE SAID ORDER DATED 16.03.2015 AS DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT/UNION TERRITORIES TO GIVE THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE ON THE UPGRADED PAY STRUCTURE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SHETTY COMMISSION W.E.F. 01.01.2006 IN TERMS OF THE 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ALL OTHER BENEFITS OR NOT? In para-16 of the said order dated 16.03.2015 the apex court has categorically provided that it is not permissible to revert back to the earlier scale of pay that existed under the 5th Pay Commission upon the Shetty Commission provided the financial benefits including the upgraded pay scale and it has been held in no uncertain terms that the corresponding revised pay scales/structures shall only be under the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. The apex court has on the basis of the Shetty Commission recommendations has judicially declared a special package for the employees of subordinate judiciary for enhancing the efficacy of the judicial administration by the orders including the order dated 16.03.2015. The apex court has on the basis of the Shetty Commission recommendations has judicially declared a special package for the employees of subordinate judiciary for enhancing the efficacy of the judicial administration by the orders including the order dated 16.03.2015. Thus, as a measure, the said package has to continue and it has been directed that revised pay structures which are to be applied w.e.f. 01.01.2006 are the revised pay structures as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission and by the future Central Pay Commission. Therefore, the respondents are directed to implement the said pay structure as the said order dated 16.03.2015 was passed in a proceeding where the State of Tripura was represented by its Chief Secretary and no clarification has been sought from the apex court. Therefore, there cannot be any other derivative meaning of the order dated 16.03.2015. Hence, the respondents are directed to give the revised pay structure to the employees of the subordinate judiciary on the pay structure given on the basis of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The arrears by way of difference till 31.03.2016 shall be paid by the respondents in a lump sum or in 4(four) equal installments and such payment shall be made within 31.03.2017. The other benefits shall also be released in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. (ii) WHETHER THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A TENABLE GROUND FOR DENYING THE SAID BENEFITS IN THIS CONTEXT, IF IT IS DECIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY IN TRIPURA IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE OF THE 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS W.E.F. 01.01.2006? By the order dated 15.07.2008 delivered in I.A. No.71A, the apex court had rejected the objection relating to the financial constraints. In that order it has been held that: “We do not think that by implementing the aforesaid recommendation the State Government will have to incur heavy financial burden since only reasonable recommendations have been made in the report of the States and the Union Territories can look into at the earliest ………….”. Thus, this court also finds no further reason to accept the ground of objection as regards the financial constraints as raised by the respondents. Thus, this court also finds no further reason to accept the ground of objection as regards the financial constraints as raised by the respondents. (iii) WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY OF TRIPURA IS ENTITLED TO THE ARREAR BENEFITS, MEANING THE DIFFERENCE OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES, IF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY IS CONSIDERED TO BE ENTITLED TO THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF THE 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS W.E.F. 01.01.2006? Yes, the employees of the subordinate judiciary are entitled to the arrear in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations benefits such as the difference of pay and allowances in terms of the direction as above. 23. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.