JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, Mr. B.B. Das and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, Mr. B.B. Das and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These writ petitions being WP(C) 371/2016, WP(C) 373/2016, WP(C) 458/2016, WP(C) 459/2016, WP(C) 460/2016, WP(C) 461/2016, WP(C) 462/2016, WP(C) 463/2016, WP(C) 464/2016, WP(C) 465/2016, WP(C) 466/2016, WP(C) 467/2016, WP(C) 468/2016, WP(C) 469/2016, WP(C) 470/2016, WP(C) 471/2016, WP(C) 472/2016, WP(C) 473/2016, WP(C) 474/2016, WP(C) 475/2016, WP(C) 476/2016, WP(C) 477/2016, WP(C) 478/2016, WP(C) 479/2016, WP(C) 480/2016, WP(C) 481/2016, WP(C) 482/2016, WP(C) 483/2016, WP(C) 484/2016, WP(C) 485/2016, WP(C) 486/2016, WP(C) 487/2016, WP(C) 488/2016, WP(C) 492/2016, WP(C) 493/2016, WP(C) 494/2016, WP(C) 495/2016, WP(C) 496/2016, WP(C) 497/2016, WP(C) 498/2016, WP(C) 499/2016, WP(C) 500/2016, WP(C) 503/2016, WP(C) 504/2016, WP(C) 505/2016, WP(C) 506/2016, WP(C) 507/2016, WP(C) 508/2016, WP(C) 509/2016, WP(C) 510/2016, WP(C) 511/2016, WP(C) 512/2016, WP(C) 513/2016, WP(C) 514/2016, WP(C) 515/2016, WP(C) 541/2016, WP(C) 542/2016, WP(C) 543/2016, WP(C) 544/2016, WP(C) 545/2016, WP(C) 546/2016, WP(C) 547/2016, WP(C) 549/2016, WP(C) 550/2016, WP(C) 551/2016, WP(C) 581/2016, WP(C) 585/2016, WP(C) 586/2016, WP(C) 587/2016, WP(C) 588/2016, WP(C) 589/2016, WP(C) 590/2016, WP(C) 591/2016, WP(C) 592/2016, WP(C) 593/2016, WP(C) 594/2016, WP(C) 600/2016, WP(C) 601/2016, WP(C) 632/2016, WP(C) 633/2016, WP(C) 634/2016, WP(C) 635/2016, WP(C) 636/2016, WP(C) 637/2016, WP(C) 638/2016, WP(C) 639/2016, WP(C) 640/2016, WP(C) 641/2016, WP(C) 642/2016, WP(C) 643/2016, WP(C) 644/2016, WP(C) 645/2016, WP(C) 646/2016, WP(C) 647/2016, WP(C) 648/2016, WP(C) 649/2016, WP(C) 650/2016, WP(C) 651/2016, WP(C) 652/2016, WP(C) 653/2016, WP(C) 654/2016, WP(C) 655/2016, WP(C) 656/2016, WP(C) 670/2016, WP(C) 671/2016, WP(C) 672/2016, WP(C) 673/2016, WP(C) 674/2016, WP(C) 675/2016, WP(C) 676/2016, WP(C) 677/2016, WP(C) 678/2016, WP(C) 679/2016, WP(C) 680/2016, WP(C) 681/2016, WP(C) 682/2016, WP(C) 683/2016, WP(C) 684/2016, WP(C) 685/2016, WP(C) 686/2016, WP(C) 687/2016, WP(C) 688/2016, WP(C) 689/2016, WP(C) 690/2016, WP(C) 691/2016, WP(C) 692/2016, WP(C) 693/2016, WP(C) 694/2016, WP(C) 695/2016, WP(C) 696/2016, WP(C) 697/2016, WP(C) 698/2016, WP(C) 699/2016, WP(C) 700/2016, WP(C) 706/2016, WP(C) 707/2016, WP(C) 708/2016, WP(C) 709/2016, WP(C) 710/2016, WP(C) 711/2016, WP(C) 712/2016, WP(C) 713/2016, WP(C) 714/2016, WP(C) 715/2016, WP(C) 716/2016, WP(C) 717/2016, WP(C) 718/2016, WP(C) 719/2016, WP(C) 720/2016, WP(C) 731/2016, WP(C) 732/2016, WP(C) 733/2016, WP(C) 734/2016, WP(C) 735/2016, WP(C) 736/2016, WP(C) 742/2016, WP(C) 743/2016, WP(C) 744/2016, WP(C) 745/2016, WP(C) 746/2016, WP(C) 747/2016, WP(C) 748/2016, WP(C) 749/2016, WP(C) 750/2016, WP(C) 751/2016, WP(C) 752/2016, WP(C) 753/2016, WP(C) 754/2016, WP(C) 755/2016, WP(C) 756/2016, WP(C) 757/2016, WP(C) 758/2016, WP(C) 759/2016, WP(C) 760/2016, WP(C) 761/2016, WP(C) 762/2016, WP(C) 780/2016, WP(C) 869/2016, WP(C) 987/2016, WP(C) 988/2016, WP(C) 989/2016, WP(C) 990/2016 and WP(C) 1247/2016 are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as all the petitioners are similarly circumstanced. That apart, the reliefs as prayed in these writ petitions are strikingly uniform having hinged on the identical fact and the questions of law. All the petitioners are indisputedly borne in the Tripura Government Stenographers Service and they are/were in the Grade IV(b) of the said service and thus they have urged that they would have been moved to the Grade IV(a) of the said service after 4(four) years alongwith the persons borne in the other cadre services. 3. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the exclusion of Tripura Stenographers Service from the benefit generated by the Addendum No. F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88 dated 13.12.1988. By the said addendum some additions have been made in the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, interalia, incorporation of the following note: Note: Applicable to all the cadre services at serials 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (i) Scale No.(a) is for promotes, Scale No.(b) is for direct recruits. (ii) Pay of existing employees who have completed 4 years of service on 1.1.86 or on the date of coming over to the revised scale, shall be directly fixed in the scale No.(a) (iii) The existing employees whose pay in the revised scale is fixed, and direct recruits who gets pay, in scale No.(b) shall be allowed pay in scale No.(a) on completion of 4 years of continuous service in the Grade in relation to which the scale stands. 3. The said movement was given in terms of the recommendation made by the Tripura Pay Commission (November 1985-February 1988). The relevant paraphrase is extracted hereunder: “The Commission’s recommendations regarding the manner of fixation of pay of the ‘cadre service’ personnel are given in paragraph 15.3.2. (b) The Commission recommends that Cadre Service Officer’s movement from the lowest to the next higher grade may be automatic after 7 years of service in the lowest grade. Where one grade has 2 scales namely (b) and (a), 7 years will apply to movement from (b) to (a) Thereafter, movement to next higher grades may be allowed after 8 years of service in each grade. This movement should be subject to vacancy, selection and fitness. Where the existing cadre service rules, provide a lower period of eligibility, movement to higher grades may be after such lower number of years”. 4. This movement should be subject to vacancy, selection and fitness. Where the existing cadre service rules, provide a lower period of eligibility, movement to higher grades may be after such lower number of years”. 4. While implementing the said recommendation, requirement of 7 (seven) years service for movement to the next grade has been reduced to 4(four) years service, but for the said addendum dated 13.12.1988, Tripura Government Stenographers’ Service has been unceremoniously excluded without any tangible reasons. According to the petitioners, for not accepting the recommendation of the Third Tripura Pay Commission so far the Tripura Government Stenographers’ Service is concerned, the respondents could not provide any reason based on which they have excluded the Tripura Government Stenographers Service. A few members of the Tripura Stenographers Service had agitated to include their service at per with the other cadre services and in terms of the recommendation made by the Third Tripura Pay Commission. 5. By the memorandum dated 13.03.1991, All Tripura Stenographers Association had expressed their resentment and demanded that after 4(four) years, the stenographers who are borne in Grade IV(b) shall be automatically moved to the pay scale of Grade V(a) of the Tripura Government Stenographers Service on completion of 4(four) years, but there was no positive response. Apart that, on 15.03.1992, All Tripura Stenographers Association had made several suggestions to the 4th Tripura Pay Commission including that of the movement/promotion after 4(four) years in the following manner: “In this regard it is brought to your kind notice that the Third Tripura Pay Commission vide page No. 61 in para-3 recommended that in the case of Triprua Government Stenographers Service movement from Grade IV(b) to Grade IV(a) i.e. from Jr. Grade to Sr. Grade (P.A.) may be automatic after completion of 7(seven) years of service. The Third Tripura Pay Commission has also recommended the automatic movement facilities will apply for movement from Grade IV(b) to Grade IV(a) after completion of 7(seven) years of service where one grade has two scales namely (b) and (a). This has been reflected vide page No. 61 & 61 of Third Tripura Pay Commission report. The Third Tripura Pay Commission has also recommended the automatic movement facilities will apply for movement from Grade IV(b) to Grade IV(a) after completion of 7(seven) years of service where one grade has two scales namely (b) and (a). This has been reflected vide page No. 61 & 61 of Third Tripura Pay Commission report. But subsequently Finance Department vide Addendum No. F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88 dated 13.12.1988 indicated that all Cadre Services except Tripura Government Stenographers Service will get this benefit i.e. next higher grade with scale of pay after completion of 4(four) years of service instead of 7(seven) years of service in the lowest grade”. 6. The said Association had emphatically demanded for giving the similar benefits to the Tripura Government Stenographers’ Service at par other cadre services, but when nothing positive came forth, a few members of the Tripura Government Stenographers’ Service filed a writ petition initially before the Gauhati High Court, which had the territorial jurisdiction at the relevant point of time, being Civil Rule No. 301 of 1999. By the judgment dated 02.12.2006, the Gauhati High Court observed that while the government had accepted the recommendation of the Commission for other services, it has strangely kept the Stenographers’ service out of the benefits of certain recommendations. Having referred Purshottam Lal vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1973 SC 1088 , it was also observed that in view of the grievances laid by the writ petitioners, the respondents should have placed the materials on record to show why the stenographers were not granted the similar benefit inasmuch as there is no differentiation like ‘higher grade’ and ‘lower grade’. It has been observed in the said judgment dated 02.12.2006 as under : “Specific attention has also been drawn to those portion of the addendum dated 13-12-88 whereby the Tripura Government granted higher pay benefit and higher movement benefit to some other Government Services. In the said addendum, TES Grade-IV and Services under TES Grade-V with pay scale of Rs.800-1860, Rs.750-1750/- and Rs.600-1440/- have also been given the benefit of higher pay as well as the benefit of automatic movement to higher scale on completion of 4 years of service. In the said addendum, TES Grade-IV and Services under TES Grade-V with pay scale of Rs.800-1860, Rs.750-1750/- and Rs.600-1440/- have also been given the benefit of higher pay as well as the benefit of automatic movement to higher scale on completion of 4 years of service. therefore, it appears that the other reasons cited by the respondents’ 'counsel to deny the benefit to the petitioners on the ground that such benefit is given only to persons whose pay is in the pay scale of Rs.800-1860/- (revised pay scale of Rs.2100-3000-5000), is not correct and such an explanation given in the counter affidavit is not acceptable. When an explanation is given in the counter affidavit that a particular benefit is given to only such class of service holders with the pay scale of Rs.800-1860/- and is not given to persons drawing lower pay scale, the said assertion has to be found to be a correct assertion vis-à-vis the categories of people who have been given the benefit of pay scale. It is apparent from the addendum that service holders in the Tripura Engineering Service in Grade-IV and Grade-V who are drawing pay scale of Rs.800-1860/-, Rs.750-1750/- and Rs.600-1440/- have also been given the higher pay benefit and the benefit of automatic movement in service and accordingly this court is of the view that the explanation tendered in the counter affidavit for keeping the Stenographers out of recommendation of the Third Pay Commission is not acceptable. Thus, it appears that there has been discrimination in considering the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits recommended by the 3rd Pay Commission. 2. Consequently, while being conscious that this court is not an expert body to determine the actual entitlement of the petitioner or the pay scale that may be given to them or the movement benefit that should be given to the Stenographers’ service, this court is of the view that the Government of Tripura while considering the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, have not acted fairly and with proper reason, while keeping the Tripura Government Stenographers out of the purview of the benefit recommended by the Third Pay Commission. The unfair treatment of the Stenographers is all the more glaring since the Government has decided to accept the recommendation in respect of all the other Services recommended by the Third Pay Commission. The unfair treatment of the Stenographers is all the more glaring since the Government has decided to accept the recommendation in respect of all the other Services recommended by the Third Pay Commission. No materials have also been made available in support of the impugned decision of the Government. The reasons cited in the counter affidavit for treating the Stenographers as a separate class vis-à-vis the other beneficiaries are also not inspiring confidence of this court. 3. In light of the discussions made above, this court is of the view that this case be disposed of by directing the Government to examine the grievances raised by the petitioners vis-à-vis the denial of the benefit of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. During such consideration, the Government should naturally examine as to whether, the Stenographers can be treated differently from the other cadre services who have been given the benefit of the Third Pay Commission’s recommendation. If no reasonable basis for differentiation between the two classes are available, the Government would be expected to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Naturally, the Government would also be expected to support whatever decision they take, by giving reasons for taking such decision. This exercise be carried out by the Government of Tripura within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.” 7. As the Gauhati High Court sent the matter back for re-consideration by the State, the petitioners in that Civil Rule No. 301 of 1999 filed an extensive representation to contend that there is no intelligible differentia. Thus, the petitioners had expectation that the government would take appropriate decision, but their representation was disposed of by the government on observing as under: “(i) The relief sought by the petitioners have been carefully examined and considered after taking all aspects including recommendations of the Pay Commission into account. To examine and consider grievances of employees including employees of the Stenographer Service, raised on the pay scales of ROP Rules 1988, Government had constituted the 2 tier Anomaly Committee. The said Anomaly Committee had submitted its report on 30-09-1991 which was subsequently referred to the 4th Tripura Pay Commission. To examine and consider grievances of employees including employees of the Stenographer Service, raised on the pay scales of ROP Rules 1988, Government had constituted the 2 tier Anomaly Committee. The said Anomaly Committee had submitted its report on 30-09-1991 which was subsequently referred to the 4th Tripura Pay Commission. But the 4th Tripura Pay Commission in its wisdom did not find enough merit to consider the grievances raised by the members of the Stenographer Service. The revised pay scale of all grades of Tripura Stenographer Services were allowed as per recommendations of both 3rd and 4th Tripura Pay Commission. (ii) Pay Commission is an expert Body for examination and consideration of pay structure and status etc of all employees working in different Departments including the Cadre Services and giving recommendation for revision of pay scales. The Pay Commission after examining all aspects has given its recommendation with its best wisdom. The recommendation of the Pay Commission in the instant case was found reasonable and accordingly Government had accepted the same. (iii) Regarding Career Advancement Scheme, it is mentioned that 4 years qualifying service for movement to next higher scale was allowed only for a few cadre service with higher status and responsibility like Tripura Civil Service, Tripura Health Service, Tripura Forest Service, Tripura Dental Service, Tripura Police Service. In all these cadre services qualification of entry in the service and responsibility shouldered by the officers are not comparable with Stenographer Service. Hence, it is not justified to equate pay scale and movement prospect of Tripura Stenographer Service with said services. (iv) The relief sought by the petitioners if accepted will have cascading effect on the other services in the Government both on financial terms and status related aspects of employees enjoying identical pay scales in different Departments including Cadre Services. It would not be proper to take an isolated view for a particular group of members of a service of a particular cadre to dis-balance the status-quo with employees in other services/ Departments. Since, only Pay Commission is the ideal Forum for looking into such grievances on a holistic manner, the issue may be referred to the next Pay Commission, when setup, for taking an holistic view covering all aspects and giving recommendation.” 8. Since, only Pay Commission is the ideal Forum for looking into such grievances on a holistic manner, the issue may be referred to the next Pay Commission, when setup, for taking an holistic view covering all aspects and giving recommendation.” 8. As a result, those writ petitioners filed a fresh writ petition being WP(C) 245 of 2007 [Sri Anjan Debroy and others vs. State of Tripura and another]. By the judgment dated 24.07.2014, this court had occasion to observe as under : “9. I shall now examine the reasons given by the Government. The first reason is that the Anomaly Committee and the 4th Tripura Pay Commission did not find merit in the grievances of the stenographers. I am surprised that the Government has taken such a stand after the learned Single Judge had clearly held that neither the Anomaly Committee nor the 4th Pay Commission had gone into the matter. This stand of the State stood already rejected. 10. As far as the second stand is concerned that helps the petitioners. The Pay Commission had recommended grant of higher scale after 7 years. The State thought it fit to grant the higher scale to persons to grade services after 4 years. The learned Single Judge had held that the State must explain what is the difference between the services. 11. As far as the third point is concerned, all that is stated is that the benefit of automatic advancement in service has been given to members of the Tripura Civil Service, Tripura Health Service, Tripura Forest Service, Tripura Dental Service, and Tripura Police Service and in all these cadres the qualification of entry in service and responsibility shouldered by the officers are not comparable with Stenographer Service. This was a stand taken earlier also, but merely saying that the service and responsibility is not the same is not sufficient. The petitioners are not asking for the same scale of pay. They are only praying that they should be treated similarly to other cadre services. The work may be different but the State has not been able to give any rational explanation to treat the Stenographer Cadre differently from the other cadres. 12. I find no merit in the contention of the State that those in the higher cadre should be granted this benefit. The work may be different but the State has not been able to give any rational explanation to treat the Stenographer Cadre differently from the other cadres. 12. I find no merit in the contention of the State that those in the higher cadre should be granted this benefit. If there is a Career Advancement Scheme, that should be the same or similar for all levels of employees and the Career Advancement Scheme which is available to the members of the other cadre services should also be available to the petitioners. 13. The last point taken by the State is that if such relief is granted to the petitioners, it will have cascading effect. I am afraid that relief cannot be refused to any petitioner if he is entitled to such relief on such a totally specious ground. 14. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has attained finality and has not been challenged by any party. Therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge quoted hereinabove have become final. The State cannot be permitted to rake up the same issues which have been decided by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. In this view of the matter, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to relief. It has been further observed : “In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to grant of being automatically placed in the higher grade on completion of 4 years of service in the lower grade as Junior Grade Stenographers. Their pay shall be re-fixed accordingly by giving them this benefit but the monetary benefit shall be restricted from 14-06-1996, i.e. 3 years prior to the filing of Civil Rule No. 301 of 1999. It is also made clear that such benefit shall only be available to the petitioners and not to other stenographers who have not approached this Court”. 9. In view of the said restrictive clause provided in the paragraph 16 of the said judgment dated 24.07.2014, all these petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have filed these petitions claiming the similar benefit as they were also deprived from the automatic movement after 4(four) years for unreasonable and culourable exercise of power by the respondents. 10. Mr. 9. In view of the said restrictive clause provided in the paragraph 16 of the said judgment dated 24.07.2014, all these petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have filed these petitions claiming the similar benefit as they were also deprived from the automatic movement after 4(four) years for unreasonable and culourable exercise of power by the respondents. 10. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this batch of writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.07.2014. 11. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents has confirmed that the State had preferred an application for special leave to appeal against the said judgment and order dated 24.07.2014, but by the order dated 17.08.2015, the Special Leave petition was dismissed both on the grounds of delay and on merit. The writ petitioners have enclosed a copy of that order dated 17.08.2015 with the writ petition as Annexure-8. Thus, it is clear from the records that the judgment and order dated 24.07.2015 reached its finality. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has also fairly submitted that the petitioners are similarly circumstanced at par with the writ petitioners of the previous writ petition being Civil Rule No. 301 of 1999. 12. Having appreciated the records and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on keen reading of the provisions, this court is of the view that exclusion of the stenographers’ service was grossly arbitrary and unreasonable and even the respondents did not have any reason of worth to discard the recommendation made by the Third Tripura Pay Commission. Moreover, all the writ petitions in this batch of writ petitions are admittedly covered by the judgment dated 24.07.2014. 13. Having held so, all these writ petitions are allowed in the same terms of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2014 as delivered in WP(C) 245 of 2007 by this Court. The petitioners shall be given the movement on their completion of 4(four) years in the Grade V(b) to Grade V(a) of the service and with all benefits. However the pay shall be fixed afresh on the day when the petitioners will move to the next grade i.e. Grade V(a) on completion of 4(four) years of the service, but they will not get the financial benefit from the said day. The petitioners have approached this court belatedly. However the pay shall be fixed afresh on the day when the petitioners will move to the next grade i.e. Grade V(a) on completion of 4(four) years of the service, but they will not get the financial benefit from the said day. The petitioners have approached this court belatedly. However, as the cause is perennial in nature, these writ petitions have been held not to be hit by laches. The actual financial benefits shall be paid to the petitioners from a date 3(three) years preceeding from the date of institution of the writ petition on bringing over the entitlements notionally from the day of their movement to that day, preceeding 3(three) years from the day of institution of the writ petition. To illustrate in the case of Prabir Pal, the writ petitioner in WP(C 371 of 2016, the date from which that petitioner will get the actual financial benefit would be 26.05.2013, the day preceeding 3(three) years of the institution of the writ petition. The financial benefit in terms of the above be recorded in the service records of the petitioners and the arrears that to be paid, are to be paid within 4(four) months from the day when the writ petitioners shall submit a copy of this order to the respondent No.2. A copy shall also be submitted to the Secretary to the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala. 14. While filing the certified copy or a copy of this order, each of the petitioners shall mention the date of filing of their respective writ petitions in terms of the records maintained in this High Court. There shall be no order as to costs.