JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Sri Hiralal Debnath v. State of Tripura & Ors. [judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 in WP(C) No. 144 of 2016]. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has however submitted that the writ petitioner has cause to approach this Court. That apart, this writ petition has been filed after unexplained and inordinate delay. Even the industrial worker in respect of whose pay scale, the grievance has been raised in this writ petition did not approach any forum for redressal during his service tenure. The writ petitioner in this case is getting family pension after death of the industrial worker, namely Kishore Rabi Das. Hence, he has stoutly contended that the writ petition is hit by principle of laches may not be decided on merit. 4. Per contra, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is perennial deprivation inasmuch as if the relief is granted, that would impact increase in the family pension. Thus, not only industrial workers but as the beneficiary of the property that was created by the industrial worker the petitioner has been own independent cause to approach this Court. 5. For purpose of appreciating the controversy, some relevant facts as the preface may be introduced. The petitioner has contended that the industrial workers against whose right she is raising this grievance, was regularized as the industrial worker w.e.f. 01.04.1979 by an order dated 21.08.1979 by the Department of Industries. 6. But he was wrongly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 170-210/- whereas, he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- - w.e.f. 01.04.1979. Some of the similarly situated industrial workers had approached the Industrial Tribunal persuading the reference. The said reference was registered as the Labour Case No. 01 of 1998. By the judgment and award dated 14.12.2000, the Industrial Tribunal declared that the industrial workers were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. 7. 240-440/- - w.e.f. 01.04.1979. Some of the similarly situated industrial workers had approached the Industrial Tribunal persuading the reference. The said reference was registered as the Labour Case No. 01 of 1998. By the judgment and award dated 14.12.2000, the Industrial Tribunal declared that the industrial workers were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. 7. The said award was challenged by the State by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 546 of 2001 in the Gauhati High Court which had then the jurisdiction over the matters in the State of Tripura. By the judgment and order dated 15.11.2002, Gauhati High Court affirmed the judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal. 8. Even though, the State preferred the special leave petition but the said special leave petition was dismissed. Such dismissal has been recorded in the judgment dated 08.10.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 07 of 2006. That fact has not been contested by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Add. G.A. appearing for the respondents. It is an admitted position of fact that the State by issuing the order dated 17.03.2005 has implemented the said judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and those industrial workers were given the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. 9. Some other industrial workers had approached this Court by filing the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 490 of 2005, WP(C) No. 491 of 2005, WP(C) No. 305 of 2005 and WP(C) No. 306 of 2005 and similar reliefs were granted to them. The State by the order under No. F.DI/ESTT/IV-27/2013/18686-761, dated 29.12.2014 has implemented the relief as granted in those writ petitions. 10. The industrial worker against whose right this wtit petition has been challenged was indisputable similarly circumstanced with that of the industrial workers who persuaded the reference being Labour Case No. 01 of 1998 for their claim of granting the pay scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. But during his service tenure, the said industrial worker did not approach for redress of the deprivation and the respondents continued to deny him the scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/-. 11. Ms. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. But during his service tenure, the said industrial worker did not approach for redress of the deprivation and the respondents continued to deny him the scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/-. 11. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the judgment and award dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Labour Case No. 01 of 1998 as published in the Tripura Gazette, Extra Ordinary Issue dated 09.04.2001 (Annexure-4 to this writ petition being WP(C) No. 192 of 2016, the lead case). 12. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further referred to the judgment and order dated 15.11.2002 as passed in WP(C) No. 546 of 2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition being WP(C) No. 192 of 2016) whereby the industrial award was affirmed by the High Court on discarding the challenge thrown by the State. 13. Thereafter, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has referred some other previous decisions of this Court such as the common judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 delivered in a batch of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 490 of 2005 etc., and contended that the doctrine of laches will not apply in this writ petition as this is a case of perennial deprivation and the deprivation still continues. 14. In this regard, she has referred further to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Madhyapradesh v. Jogendra Shrivastava, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 where it has been held as under: “18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. Therefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the original application. [See: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628 , and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ]”. 15. So far the doctrine of laches is concerned, by the common judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 delivered in WP(C) No. 490 of 2005 etc., (Annexure-7 to the writ petition being WP(C) No. 192 of 2016) it has been held as under: “5. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, the present writ petitions may be allowed keeping in view of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No.7 of 2006 but the relief in respect of arrears should be restricted to the extent of three years prior to the date of original application. It may be mentioned here that the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Jogendra Sreevastava (supra) was not referred while passing of the judgment of WP(C) No.7 of 2006. 6. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment passed in WP(C) No.7 of 2006 and subsequent judgment passed in WP(C) No.305 of 2005 and WP(C) No.306 of 2005, subject to the consequential relief in respect of payment of arrears restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of original application filed by the petitioners of the present cases. 7. Both the writ petitions were filed on 07.12.2005 and so the petitioners of both the writ petitions shall be allowed consequential reliefs of payment of arrears restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of these petitions.” Needless to say that the pension and other retiral benefits on account of the said industrial worker, the deceased husband of the petitioner has been settled without extending the benefit of scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.2017. 16. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the respondents has admitted that the judgment and order dated 29.04.2017 has been implemented by the State. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.2017. 16. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the respondents has admitted that the judgment and order dated 29.04.2017 has been implemented by the State. Hence, this Court does not find any reason why the writ petitioner will not get the similar benefits as it is evident that the said industrial worker was similarly circumstanced like the writ petitioners in the batch of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 490 of 2005 etc. 17. So far the objection raised by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents in respect of the laches is concerned, this Court is of the view that this issue has been settled by the Apex Court in Jogendra Shrivastava (supra). Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the principle of recurring and successive wrong would apply in this writ petition not the doctrine of laches. 18. Hence, this Court does not have any amount of dilemma that the case of the writ petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in Sri Hiralal Debnath v. State of Tripura and Ors., delivered in WP(C) No. 144 of 2016 etc. [judgment and order dated 30.11.2016], where this Court had observed as under: “15. What is now settled is that simply on the ground of delay and laches, the Court should not jump to a conclusion to refuse the relief to a genuine litigant. Court must consider the particular fact and circumstances brought before the Court. In the given case, the petitioners were Industrial Workers. They claimed that they were entitled to a particular pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. They have not been given that pay scale, whereas, similarly situated others were given the said pay scale. We are in a welfare state. It is the duty of every authority under the welfare State to treat all the like people in the same scale. While some were allowed the higher pay scale w.e.f. particular date why other should be deprived. It is settled by the Court of law that the Industrial workers who approached the Court were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. So the benevolent Government would grant the similar relief to the others also. However, it is an admitted position that the petitioners of subsequent writ petitions were also granted the similar relief. It is settled by the Court of law that the Industrial workers who approached the Court were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. So the benevolent Government would grant the similar relief to the others also. However, it is an admitted position that the petitioners of subsequent writ petitions were also granted the similar relief. It is in respect of pay scale to which the petitioners were entitled. The case law which has been referred by the respondents in their counter affidavit i.e. a judgment of this Court dated 25.06.2015 in WP(C) No. 368 of 2010 is completely on a different context and that is not related to pay scale rather, it was in respect of the status of the petitioner of that writ petition while he was in service.” 19. After noting the ratio of Jogendra Shrivastava (supra) in Hiralal Debnath, this Court had observed as under: “17. The present case of the petitioners is well covered by the above observations of the Apex Court. 18. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby ordered that the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979 and the respondents are directed to grant the same to the petitioners accordingly. In respect of payment of arrears, it is restricted to the period of three years prior to the date of writ petition filed by the petitioners of the present batch of writ petitions. They are not entitled to the arrears for more than three years prior to the date of their writ petition.” 20. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said industrial worker was similarly circumstanced and he was entitled to the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 240-440 w.e.f. 01.04.1979. 21. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the said industrial worker in the sale of pay of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979 or from date of his appointment as the industrial worker, or whichever is earlier and thereafter, the benefits of revision of pay scale shall be extended to fix the family pension of the petitioner accordingly. 22. The devolution of the pay would be notional, subject to what has been provided hereinafter. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979 or from date of his appointment as the industrial worker, or whichever is earlier and thereafter, the benefits of revision of pay scale shall be extended to fix the family pension of the petitioner accordingly. 22. The devolution of the pay would be notional, subject to what has been provided hereinafter. But the financial benefits in respect of the payment of arrear against the family pension shall be restricted to a period of 3(three) years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. Such arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) months from the date when the petitioners shall submit a copy of this judgment. For purpose of record, this writ petition was filed in this High Court on 19.09.2016. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.