JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.595 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.596 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.597 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.598 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.599 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.258 of 2016 are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as there is consensus in the bar that all these writ petitions are covered by the decision of this court [the judgment and order dated 24.09.2015] delivered in the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.221 of 2012, W.P.(C) No.222 of 2012, W.P.(C) No.223 of 2012, W.P.(C) No.224 of 2012, W.P.(C) No.225 of 2012, W.P.(C) No.226 of 2012, W.P.(C) No.227 of 2012. 3. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that all the petitioners are similarly circumstanced visavis the petitioners in those writ petitions. 4. Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has very fairly submitted that there is no distinguishable difference in the cases and thus, the state has considered that the similar relief may be extended to the present petitioners as well. In the previous judgment as stated above this court has observed as under: “8. There cannot be any amount of disagreement that the Memorandum dated 07.03.1981 had formulated a scheme for granting higher pay scale to the Assistant Teachers who had acquired higher qualification. It is irrespective of the establishment whether one Assistant Teacher was working in the primary establishment or middle school or in the high school. If an under graduate teacher in the primary establishment acquired or was having the higher qualification, he was entitled to the higher scale interms of the qualification, provided that the said qualification was acquired before 23.04.1982. Similarly, if an under graduate teacher was working in the middle school and had acquired a higher qualification, such as the bachelor degree he would equally be entitled to get the benefit of the higher scale, which is usually entitled to the graduate teacher if the said higher qualification was acquired before 23.04.1982. 9. There is not dispute that all the petitioners acquired higher qualification of the bachelor degree before 23.04.1982 and as such they were otherwise covered by the Memorandum No.F.2(1023)DSE/79 dated 07.03.1981. 9. There is not dispute that all the petitioners acquired higher qualification of the bachelor degree before 23.04.1982 and as such they were otherwise covered by the Memorandum No.F.2(1023)DSE/79 dated 07.03.1981. From the order dated 18.03.2004 it clearly transpires that the respondents in the Civil Appeal No. 4004 of 1999 were also appointed on consolidated pay like the petitioners herein. In that perspective the apex court has observed that the respondents acquired the degree before their services were regularised. Consequently, they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 325-665. While implementing that order by the Memorandum dated 29.09.2009 (Annexure P6 to the writ petition) the official respondents decided that those respondents of the Civil Appeals “Shall be allowed the scale of Rs. 325-665 with effect from 01.08.1981 or the date of appointment or the date of acquiring the Bachelor's degree, whichever is later” [Emphasis supplied] In the Annexure attached to that Memorandum dated 29.09.2009 the date of appointment has been designated as 'Date of Appointment as A/T of fixed pay'. In the case in hand as the petitioners’ regular scale of pay was Rs. 325-665, which was given to them from their consolidated pay by the Memorandum dated 08.02.1982 (Annexure P2 to the writ petition), they are entitled to get the higher scale pay of Rs. 325-665 from their date of appointment on the consolidated pay in as much as the said higher scale is linked with higher qualification. As it appears that petitioners were having the Bachelor Degree on the day of appointment, there is no question of acquiring higher qualification from a posterior date. Hence, the relevant date would be the date of appointment on consolidated pay. Thus, the denial was arbitrary and illegal according to that scheme. But here is a case where the petitioners slept over their right till 2012 when they filed the writ petitions. The writ petitions could have been dismissed for laches, but it is the denial of the pecuniary benefit, even on the day of filing the writ petitions that denial continued. As such, it cannot be said that the cause itself had become stale by the principle of laches. But, so far as extending the benefit of the arrear of pay and allowances is concerned, this court is bound to restrict it for 3 (three) years prior to the date of institution of the writ petition. As such, it cannot be said that the cause itself had become stale by the principle of laches. But, so far as extending the benefit of the arrear of pay and allowances is concerned, this court is bound to restrict it for 3 (three) years prior to the date of institution of the writ petition. However, the petitioners are entitled to get the notional benefit. It is needless to say that while fixing the pay of the petitioners from the day of their appointment, their pay shall be fixed notionally after giving the benefits of the revision of the pay scale in various phases. But, the financial benefit would be available to the petitioners for 3(three) years prior to the date of institution of the writ petition i.e. on 10.05.2012 and thereafter.” 5. The benefits similar to the writ petitioners of the previous writ petitions as noted shall be released to the petitioners of this batch of this writ petition within 6(six) months from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this judgment and order to the respondents, particularly to the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura. 6. Accordingly all these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.