JUDGMENT AND ORDER : These petitions being WP(C) No. 985 of 2016 [Sri Haridas Louha v. State of Tripura & Ors.] and WP(C) No. 1140 of 2016 [Sri Sunil Ch. Barai v. State of Tripura & Ors.] are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as issues are common and setup in an identical conspectus of fact. 2. 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. 3. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that these writ petitions are 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]. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has however submitted that the petitioners in these writ petitions have approached this Court after an inordinate delay. Even the industrial workers in respect of whose pay scale, the grievance has been raised in these writ petitions did not approach any forum for redress. The writ petitioners in these cases have been deprived of the pay-scale of Rs. 240-440/- which has been introduced wie.f. 01.04.1979 despite their being the skilled workers. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. has stoutly contended that all these writ petitions are hit by principle of laches and hence, those may not be decided on merit. 5. Per contra, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is a case of perennial deprivation inasmuch as if the relief is granted, that would impact increase in their pension inasmuch as in the course of time the writ petitioners have retired from their services. Thus, the Industrial Workers have their cause to approach this Court for undoing the perennial deprivation. For purpose of appreciating the controversy, some relevant fact may be introduced in the beginning. 6. The petitioners contended that the persons who were working as the worker were regularized as the industrial workers w.e.f. 01.04.1979 by an order dated 21.08.1979 by the Department of Industries. 7. But the petitioners, are wrongly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 170-210/on the pretext that those workers did not have the trade certificate, they were not given the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. 7. But the petitioners, are wrongly placed in the pay scale of Rs. 170-210/on the pretext that those workers did not have the trade certificate, they were not given the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.1979. When the same benefit was extended to the workers who were also working as the industrial worker. Some of the similarly situated industrial workers deprived of the said scale approached the Industrial Tribunal through the reference and 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. 8. 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 the Gauhati High Court affirmed the judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal. 9. Even though, the State preferred the special leave petition but the same 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 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. 10. 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 the similar relief was granted to them. The State by the order under No. F.DI/ESTT/IV27/2013/18686-761, dated 29.12.2014 implemented the relief as granted in those writ petitions. 11. The writ petitioners are indisputably similarly circumstanced. All the industrial workers who persuaded the reference being Labour Case No. 01 of 1998 for their claim of granting of pay scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/w.e.f. 01.04.1979 from the date of appointment as the industrial worker. But during their service tenure they did not approach for redress of the deprivation and they were denied in the scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/. 240-440/w.e.f. 01.04.1979 from the date of appointment as the industrial worker. But during their service tenure they did not approach for redress of the deprivation and they were denied in the scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/. The petitioners in these writ petitions have retired from the service and their date of retirement is shown in the table below: Sl. No. Writ petition No. Name of the writ petitioner Date of retirement 1. WP(C) No. 985 of 2016 Sri Haridas Louha 30.06.2005 2. WP(C) No. 1140 of 2016 Sri Sunil Ch. Barai 30.06.2005 12. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 which is (Annexure4 to this writ petition being WP(C) No. 192 of 2016). 13. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further referred to the judgment and order dated 15.11.2002 as passed in WP(C) No. 546 of 2001 (Annexure5 to the writ petition being WP(C) No. 192 of 2016) whereby, the industrial award was affirmed by the Gauhati High Court on discarding the challenge thrown by the State. 14. Thereafter, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has also referred some other previous decisions of this Court as referred above, 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 these cases as these are the cases of perennial deprivation and the deprivation still continues. 15. In this regard, Ms. Debgupta, learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra Shrivastava, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 where it has been held by the Apex Court 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. 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. 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 ]”. 16. 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 observed 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. 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 their pension and other retiral benefits has been settled without extending the benefit of scale of pay of Rs. 240-440/- w.e.f. 01.04.2017 17. 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. Thus, this Court does not find any reason why the writ petitioners in these writ petitions will not get the similar benefits as it is evident that they were similarly circumstanced like the writ petitioners of the batch of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 490 of 2005 etc. 18. So far the objection raised by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents in respect of laches, this Court is of the view that this issue has been settled by the Apex Court in Jogendra Shrivastava (supra) and it is no more res integra. Hence, this Court is of the view that in these writ petitions, the principle of recurring and successive wrong would apply, not the doctrine of laches. 19. Thus, this Court does not have any amount of doubt that the case of the writ petitioners will be 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. 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 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.” 20. After noting the ratio of Jogendra Shrivastava (supra) in Hiralal Debnath (supra) 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.” 21. As this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioners are similarly circumstanced of those writ petitioners, these writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 240-440 w.e.f. 01.04.1979 or from their date of appointment as the industrial workers. 22. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioners in the sale of pay of Rs. 240-440 w.e.f. 01.04.1979 or from their date of appointment as the industrial workers. 22. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioners in the sale of pay of Rs. 240-440/w.e.f. 01.04.1979 or from date of their appointment as the industrial workers or whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the benefits of subsequent revision of pay scales shall be extended to the petitioners and for purpose of fixing their pay and the revised pention. 23. In the process, the last pay drawn by the petitioners on the date of their retirement as shown above, has to be refixed and accordingly their pension and other retiral benefits shall also be determined. But no financial benefits for this purpose shall be extended to the petitioner save and except what has been provided hereinafter. But the financial benefits in respect of the payment of arrear emanating from the pension only shall be restricted to a period of 3 (three) years prior to the date of filing of the writ petitions. Such arrears shall be paid to the petitioners 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 22.08.2016. This Court has recorded the date of filing in a separate order passed in the other writ petitions. In terms of the above, these writ petitions stand allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.