JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5. 2. Since these cases are covered by a decision of this court in Pradipta Kumar Goswami and Others vs. State of Tripura and Others [Judgment and order dated 29.06.2015 delivered in W.P. (C) No. 505 of 2011]. All these writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 309 of 2016 [Lokajit Chakraborty vs. State of Tripura], W.P. (C) No. 310 of 2016 [Babul Bhattacharji vs. State of Tripura] and W.P. (C) No. 311 of 2016 [Bhajan Dey vs. State of Tripura] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment. 3. There is no disagreement in the bar that the bone of controversy in this writ petitions are that even though the petitioners are regularised by a common appointment order dated 02.04.2011 under No. F6(151)-TSECL/05/P-2/9,392-532 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petitions], they have not been given the benefits as per the scheme of the State Government declared by memorandum No. F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 09.06.2009 [Part of Annexure-P/2 to the writ petitions]. According to the said memorandum dated 09.06.2009, all the eligible persons will be regularised with effect from 01.07.2008. The petitioners had completed 10(ten) years of service on 01.03.2008 as DRW/Casual/Contingent Workers engaged on full time basis and hence they were eligible for regularisation under the said scheme declared by the memorandum dated 09.06.2009. The petitioners were the contingent workers and doing the job of Meter Reader cum Bill Clerks (in short MRCBC). Long time back, they had completed their 10(ten) years of service and before 01.03.2008. Hence, they have been given appointment in the regular establishment by the order dated 02.04.2011 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition]. But their regular appointment would only be effective from the day when the petitioners should join in their posts. 4. This court in Pradipta Kumar Goswami (supra) has observed as under: “(10) This is really unfortunate that the persons who are working in the Corporation and who have worked in the Power Department for a considerable long term, will not be getting the benefit of the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 as the necessary fund is not available with the Corporation. 4. This court in Pradipta Kumar Goswami (supra) has observed as under: “(10) This is really unfortunate that the persons who are working in the Corporation and who have worked in the Power Department for a considerable long term, will not be getting the benefit of the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 as the necessary fund is not available with the Corporation. It has not been disputed by the respondents that this memorandum has been implemented in the other Departments, effectively bringing the similarly situated persons on the regular establishment w.e.f. 01.07.2008. Since these unfortunate workers have been working in the Corporation, they are now at the mercy of the Corporation. From examination of the records so produced, this court also cannot disagree with the assessment that the corporation is reeling under serious crunch of fund and on financial matters this court cannot direct the Corporation to adopt any pay structure or regularisation if that is not possible within their means. But, the rigid attitude of the Corporation at the same time cannot be subscribed by this court. As a result, the decision contained in the communication dated 01.04.2011 is interfered with, inasmuch as this is not consistent with the decision of the Council of Ministers at all and the respondents could not show any other basis of issuing such communication. What the Council of Ministers has decided in their meeting dated 31.03.2011 is that the financial benefit may not be given with effect from 01.07.2008, but from their date of regularization. There again emerges another issue. What would be the effective date of regularization? The Council of Ministers is silent over that aspect of the matter. If the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 and the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 31.03.2011 are read together, only interpretation that can possibly be gathered is that the petitioners will be regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2008, but they will not get the financial benefit from that date. It has not been denied by the respondents that the offer of appointment that was issued on 27.12.2010 has been accepted by all the petitioners, but under protest.” 5. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners are similarly situated like the petitioners in Pradipta Kumar Goswami (supra) and as such they are also entitled to similar benefits. With this proposition, Mr. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners are similarly situated like the petitioners in Pradipta Kumar Goswami (supra) and as such they are also entitled to similar benefits. With this proposition, Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 has not projected any opposition or reservation. In the paragraph-12 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under: “(12) It is made further clear that on 01.07.2008 the pay of the petitioners shall be fixed in the scale of pay that has been denoted in the memorandum dated 27.12.2010, but the petitioners will not get the financial benefit till 26.12.2010. From 27.12.2010 they would get all the financial benefit as the regular employee of the Corporation. As a result, the Corporation has to defray the arrear pay and allowances of the petitioners for a period, somewhat of more than 3(three) months only. The said arrear shall be paid to the petitioners within 3(three) months from the day when the certified copy of this order shall be furnished by the petitioners to the respondent No. 4, else the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made.” 6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed directing the respondents to give the petitioners benefit of regularisation with effect from 01.07.2008 in terms of the said memorandum dated 09.06.2009 [Part of Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition] within a period of 3(three) months from the day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondent No. 4. The arrear as might accrue be paid within the said 3(three) months, else the arrears shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 02.04.2011 till the payment is made. 7. In the result, these writ petitions stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.