JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel and Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel and Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions being WP(C) No. 491 of 2016 [Ajoy Mallik vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 525 of 2016 [Ratan Kumar Deb vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 526 of 2016 [Babul Debnath vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 527 of 2016 [Binoy Saha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 528 of 2016 [Jiban Saha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 529 of 2016 [Jahangir Hossen vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 530 of 2016 [Ranendu Kishore Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 531 of 2016 [Jagadish Paul vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 532 of 2016 [Tushar Kanti Dutta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 533 of 2016 [Jayanta Nath vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 534 of 2016 [Phani Bhusan Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 535 of 2016 [Mihir Kumar Nath vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 557 of 2016 [Biswajit Ghosh vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 558 of 2016 [Tapan Kumar Biswas vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 559 of 2016 [Shibani(Brahma) Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 560 of 2016 [Pranjoy Roy vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 561 of 2016 [Pradip Choudhury vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 568 of 2016 [Biswajit Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 569 of 2016 [Badal Kumar Rakshit vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 570 of 2016 [Narayan Chandra Saha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 571 of 2016 [Babul Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 572 of 2016 [Shyambabu Sinha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 573 of 2016 [Ruhul Alam vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 574 of 2016 [Sankar Lal Purkayastha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 575 of 2016 [Saroj Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 578 of 2016 [Dilip Ghosh vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 579 of 2016 [Rajib Saha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 580 of 2016 [Sibu Chandra Dey vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 621 of 2016 [Sadhan Dutta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 622 of 2016 [Pradip Kumar Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 623 of 2016 [Rabindra Kumar Bhowmik vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 624 of 2016 [Bipul Gon Choudhury vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 625 of 2016 [Sudhip Dhar vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 626 of 2016 [Ranendra Narayan Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 627 of 2016 [Arun Roy vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 628 of 2016 [Niresh Dey vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 730 of 2016 [Amar Kishore Dutta @ Amal Krishna Dutta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 766 of 2016 [Ashish Ranjan Banik vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 767 of 2016 [Amalendu Dhar vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 768 of 2016 [Sanat Kumar Pal vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 769 of 2016 [Santosh Choudhury vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 770 of 2016 [Nalini Ranjan Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 771 of 2016 [Shibu Chanda vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 772 of 2016 [Samir Chandra Majumder vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 773 of 2016 [Himangshu Roy vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 774 of 2016 [Ranjit Chandra Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 775 of 2016 [Dilip Kumar Bhowmik vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 803 of 2016 [Rajib Debnath vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 804 of 2016 [Amiya Choudhury vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 805 of 2016 [Naru Gopal Deb vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 806 of 2016 [Kishore Kumar Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 807 of 2016 [Benu Lal Kar vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 808 of 2016 [Subhrangshu Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 809 of 2016 [Jayanta Kumar Roy vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 810 of 2016 [Badal Dutta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 811 of 2016 [Manash Paul vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 812 of 2016 [Sanjit Sen vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 813 of 2016 [Indrajit Singha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 814 of 2016 [Ratan Majumder vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 815 of 2016 [Swapan Sarkar vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 821 of 2016 [Matilal Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 822 of 2016 [Nepal Chandra Deb vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 823 of 2016 [Subrata Debnath vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 824 of 2016 [Satya Bikas Biswas vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 825 of 2016 [Debasish Banerji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 826 of 2016 [Priya Lal Majumder vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 827 of 2016 [Biswajit Saha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 828 of 2016 [Tarun Kumar Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 829 of 2016 [Ratan Kumar Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 837 of 2016 [Dilip Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 838 of 2016 [Sudarshan Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 839 of 2016 [Pradip Chakraborty vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 840 of 2016 [Sudip Chakraborty vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 841 of 2016 [Pran Krishna Saha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 842 of 2016 [Partha Gon Choudhury vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 843 of 2016 [Kumud Ranjan Dutta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 844 of 2016 [Ajit Dasgupta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 845 of 2016 [Dilip Kumar Deb vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 846 of 2016 [Shanti Ranjan Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 885 of 2016 [Ranjit Kumar Dutta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 886 of 2016 [Bhaskar Chakraborty vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 887 of 2016 [Ratan Kumar Deb vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 888 of 2016 [Nirmal Chandra Saha vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 889 of 2016 [Swapan Kumar Dey vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 890 of 2016 [Sudhir Chandra Biswas vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 891 of 2016 [Bhabesh Ranjan Choudhury vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 892 of 2016 [Debashis Lodh vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 893 of 2016 [Upendra Chandra Biswas vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 894 of 2016 [Purnendu Dutta vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 895 of 2016 [Haripada Bhattacharji vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 904 of 2016 [Rathindra Chandra Ghosh vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 29 of 2017 [Sujit Kumar Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 30 of 2017 [Ranadeb Das vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 47 of 2017 [Manindra Debnath vs State of Tripura & Others] and WP(C) No. 729 of 2016 [Gouranga Debnath vs State of Tripura & Others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the controversy in the writ petitions is identically contoured and this position has been accepted by the counsel for the parties on 29.07.2016, as is evident from the order dated 29.07.2016. 3. The reliefs as urged in this writ petition are that the initial pay or the pay of the writ petitioners shall be fixed at Rs.1450-3710 with effect from 01.01.86 and on completion of 10 years of service in the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/- [corresponding to there revised pay scale of Rs.7450-13,000/- as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 with effect from 01.01.96 subject to the conditions laid down therein] in the grade of Sub-Inspector of police and on such basis to refix the pay of the petitioners in terms of the revisions as given effect to by the subsequent Revised Pay Rules. 4. There is no dispute that the petitioners are/were holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. But there initial entry in the substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police emerges very material for determination of their individual rights so far the entitlement of the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/- is concerned. On the basis of the records or averments made in the writ petition, the following table has been formed to show the date of appointment of the petitioners in the substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police : Sl. No. Writ petition No. Name of the Writ petitioner Date of appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police 1 WP(C) No. 491 of 2016 Sri Ajoy Mallik 17.10.1989 2 WP(C) No. 525 of 2016 Sri Ratan Kr. Deb 01.10.1989 3 WP(C) No. 526 of 2016 Sri Babul Debnath 05.10.1993 4 WP(C) No. 527 of 2016 Sri Binoy Saha 01.02.2000 5 WP(C) No. 528 of 2016 Sri Jiban Saha 01.02.2000 6 WP(C) No. 529 of 2016 Sri Jahangir Hossen 01.02.2000 7 WP(C) No. 530 of 2016 Sri Ranendu Kishore Bhattacharji 30.12.1992 8 WP(C) No. 531 of 2016 Sri Jagadish Paul 17.10.1989 9 WP(C) No. 532 of 2016 Sri Tushar Kanti Dutta 04.10.1989 10 WP(C) No. 533 of 2016 Sri Jayanta Nath 30.12.1992 11 WP(C) No. 534 of 2016 Sri Phani Bhusan Das 17.10.1989 12 WP(C) No. 535 of 2016 Sri Mihir Kr. Nath 01.02.1994 13 WP(C) No. 557 of 2016 Sri Biswajit Ghosh 01.02.2000 14 WP(C) No. 558 of 2016 Tapan Kr. Nath 01.02.1994 13 WP(C) No. 557 of 2016 Sri Biswajit Ghosh 01.02.2000 14 WP(C) No. 558 of 2016 Tapan Kr. Biswas 01.02.1990 15 WP(C) No. 559 of 2016 Smt.Shibani(Brahma) Bhattacharji 30.12.1992 16 WP(C) No. 560 of 2016 Sri Pranjoy Roy 01.02.2000 17 WP(C) No. 561 of 2016 Sri Pradip Choudhury 01.02.2000 18 WP(C) No. 568 of 2016 Sri Biswajit Das 06.10.1989 19 WP(C) No. 569 of 2016 Sri Badal Kr. Rakshit 01.02.1990 20 WP(C) No. 570 of 2016 Sri Narayan Ch. Saha 03.06.1997 21 WP(C) No. 571 of 2016 Babul Das 22.02.1991 22 WP(C) No. 572 of 2016 Sri Shyambabu Sinha 01.02.2000 23 WP(C) No. 573 of 2016 Sri Ruhul Alam 01.02.2000 24 WP(C) No. 574 of 2016 Sri Sankar lal Purkayastha 03.06.1997 25 WP(C) No. 575 of 2016 Sri Saroj Bhattacharj 03.06.1997 26 WP(C) No. 578 of 2016 Sri Dilip Ghosh 31.01.1994 27 WP(C) No. 579 of 2016 Sri Rajib Saha 03.06.1997 28 WP(C) No. 580 of 2016 Sri Sibu Chandra Dey 03.06.1997 29 WP(C) No. 621 of 2016 Sri Sadhan Dutta 09.09.1981 30 WP(C) No. 622 of 2016 Sri Pradip Kr. Das 06.10.1989 31 WP(C) No. 623 of 2016 Sri Rabindra Kr. Bhowmik 11.09.1981 32 WP(C) No. 624 of 2016 Sri Bipul Gon Choudhury 09.09.1981 33 WP(C) No. 625 of 2016 Sri Sudhip Dhar 11.09.1981 34 WP(C) No. 626 of 2016 Sri Ranendra Narayan Das 12.03.1983 35 WP(C) No. 627 of 2016 Sri Arun Roy 21.01.1977 36 WP(C) No. 628 of 2016 Sri Niresh Dey 09.09.1981 37 WP(C) No. 730 of 2016 Sri Amar Kishore Dutta @ Amal Krishna Dutta 26.07.1979 38 WP(C) No. 766 of 2016 Sri Ashish Ranjan Bhowmik 12.03.1983 39 WP(C) No. 767 of 2016 Sri Amalendu Dhar 12.03.1983 40 WP(C) No. 768 of 2016 Sri Sanat Kr. Pal 09.09.1981 41 WP(C) No. 769 of 2016 Sri Santosh Choudhury 15.09.1981 42 WP(C) No. 770 of 2016 Sri Nalini Ranjan Das 25.07.1979 43 WP(C) No. 771 of 2016 Sri Shibu Chanda 19.01.1987 44 WP(C) No. 772 of 2016 Sri Samir Ch. Majumder 04.12.1987 45 WP(C) No. 773 of 2016 Sri Himangshu Roy 12.03.1983 46 WP(C) No. 774 of 2016 Sri Ranjit Ch. Das 09.09.1981 47 WP(C) No. 775 of 2016 Sri Dilip Kr. Majumder 04.12.1987 45 WP(C) No. 773 of 2016 Sri Himangshu Roy 12.03.1983 46 WP(C) No. 774 of 2016 Sri Ranjit Ch. Das 09.09.1981 47 WP(C) No. 775 of 2016 Sri Dilip Kr. Bhowmik 11.09.1981 48 WP(C) No. 803 of 2016 Sri Rajib Debnath 14.06.2000 49 WP(C) No. 804 of 2016 Sri Amiya Chowdhury 09.09.1981 50 WP(C) No. 805 of 2016 Sri Naru Gopal Deb 01.02.2000 51 WP(C) No. 806 of 2016 Sri Kishore Kumar Das 03.06.1997 52 WP(C) No. 807 of 2016 Sri Benu Lal Kar 17.10.1989 53 WP(C) No. 808 of 2016 Sri Subhrangshu Bhattacharjee 01.02.2000 54 WP(C) No. 809 of 2016 Sri Jayanta Kr. Roy 01.02.2000 55 WP(C) No. 810 of 2016 Sri Badal Dutta 01.02.2000 56 WP(C) No. 811 of 2016 Sri Manash Paul 01.02.2000 57 WP(C) No. 812 of 2016 Sri Sanjit Sen 01.02.2000 58 WP(C) No. 813 of 2016 Sri Indrajit Singha 17.10.1989 59 WP(C) No. 814 of 2016 Sri Ratan Majumder 03.06.1997 60 WP(C) No. 815 of 2016 Sri Swapan Sarkar 01.02.2000 61 WP(C) No. 821 of 2016 Sri Matilal Bhattacharjee 27.02.1977 62 WP(C) No. 822 of 2016 Sri Nepal Ch. Deb 02.12.1985 63 WP(C) No. 823 of 2016 Sri Subrata Debnath 01.02.2000 64 WP(C) No. 824 of 2016 Sri Satya Bikas Biswas 03.06.1997 65 WP(C) No. 825 of 2016 Sri Debasish Banerji 18.10.1989 66 WP(C) No. 826 of 2016 Sri Priya Lal Majumder 26.07.1979 67 WP(C) No. 827 of 2016 Sri Biswajit Saha 09.12.1993 68 WP(C) No. 828 of 2016 Sri Tarun Kumar Das 24.01.1994 69 WP(C) No. 829 of 2016 Sri Ratan Kumar Das 27.01.1987 70 WP(C) No. 837 of 2016 Sri Dilip Bhattacharjee 10.03.1986 71 WP(C) No. 838 of 2016 Sri Sudarshan Bhattacharji 28.05.1983 72 WP(C) No. 839 of 2016 Sri Pradip Chakraborty 02.09.1987 73 WP(C) No. 840 of 2016 Sri Sudip Chakraborty 20.11.1991 74 WP(C) No. 841 of 2016 Sri Pran Krishna Saha 27.02.1979 75 WP(C) No. 842 of 2016 Sri Partha Gon Choudhury 29.12.1980 76 WP(C) No. 843 of 2016 Sri Kumud Ranjan Dutta 03.09.1987 77 WP(C) No. 844 of 2016 Sri Ajit Dasgupta 20.11.1991 78 WP(C) No. 845 of 2016 Sri Dilip Kumar Deb 29.11.1991 79 WP(C) No. 846 of 2016 Sri Shanti Ranjan Das 25.03.1991 80 WP(C) No. 885 of 2016 Sri Ranjit Kumar Dutta 02.12.1987 81 WP(C) No. 886 of 2016 Sri Bhaskar Chakraborty 24.07.1979 82 WP(C) No. 887 of 2016 Sri Ratan Kumar Deb 24.04.1979 83 WP(C) No. 888 of 2016 Sri Nirmal Ch. Saha 26.07.1979 84 WP(C) No. 889 of 2016 Sri Swapan Kumar Dey 26.07.1979 85 WP(C) No. 890 of 2016 Sri Sudhir Chandra Biswas 26.07.1979 86 WP(C) No. 891 of 2016 Sri Bhabesh Ranjan Chowdhury 26.07.1979 87 WP(C) No. 892 of 2016 Sri Debashis Lodh 26.07.1979 88 WP(C) No. 893 of 2016 Sri Upendra Chandra Biswas 26.07.1979 89 WP(C) No. 894 of 2016 Sri Purnendu Dutta 26.07.1979 90 WP(C) No. 895 of 2016 Sri Haripada Bhattacharjee 26.07.1979 91 WP(C) No. 904 of 2016 Sri Rathindra Chandra Ghosh 07.12.1987 92 WP(C) No. 29 of 2017 Sri Sujit Kumar Das 06.10.1989 93 WP(C) No. 30 of 2017 Sri Ranadeb Das 29.01.1990 94 WP(C) No. 47 of 2017 Sri Manindra Debnath 18.02.1991 95 WP(C) No. 729 of 2016 Sri Gouranga Debnath 29.12.1980 * The entries in the bold denote the writ petitions which are dismissed hereunder. ** The entries made in the table above have been made on the basis of the averment in respect of the date of appointment as the Sub-Inspector of Police. ** The entries made in the table above have been made on the basis of the averment in respect of the date of appointment as the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is made clear that if any, discrepancy is located, the official records will prevail. 5. The petitioners have asserted that their case is covered by a decision of the Gauhati High Court which had the jurisdiction over the matters from the territory of Tripura by the common judgment and order dated 10.01.2006 delivered in RSA No.44 of 2003 The State of Tripura & Others vs Sri Tarun Chandra Dey & Others and also by the decision in Jiban Lal Roy & Others vs State of Tripura & Others by [the common judgment and order dated 03.12.2015 delivered in WP(C) No. 144 of 2005 etc]. 6. There is no dispute that Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982 was given effect from 01.01.1982. In the Serial No. 13 of the Schedule-III of the said rules, the revised pay scale of the Sub-Inspector of Police [Armed and Un-armed/SI of Police (Border Wing)] was Rs.560-1300/-. By the ROP Rules, 1988 the said scale of pay was modified to Rs.600-1400/- which was in force till 31.12.1985 before the revised scales of the ROP Rules, 1988 were implemented from 01.01.1986. By virtue of that revision, the scale of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police was revised as under : Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the post if any Modified present scale if any Revised Pay Scale 7 Inspector of Police (UB/AB)/(Women)/(Amourer)/(Border Wing) 650-1595/- --- 750-1750/- 1700-3980/- 8 Sub Inspector of Police (UB/AB)/(Women)/(Armourer)/(Photography)/(Cell)/(Mech) 560-1300/- --- 600-1440/- 1300-3220/- 7. The scale of pay given to the Sub-Inspector of Police i.e.1300-3220/- was not accepted by a large section of Sub-Inspector of Police and several representations were made to the Finance Department. It transpires from the record that the Finance Department, Government of Tripura by the office memorandum under No. F.4(32)-FIN(GC)92(L-I) dated 07.11.1992 modified the revised scale of Sub-Inspector of Police from Rs.1300-3220/- to Rs.1450-3710/- with effect from 01.11.1992. By another office memorandum under No. F.4(6)-Fin(PC)/88(P-I) dated 21.09.1995, the Finance Department, Government of Tripura had introduced the movement of the Sub-Inspectors who had rendered 10 years of service without promotion to the next scale, equivalent to the scale of the post of Inspector of Police. By another office memorandum under No. F.4(6)-Fin(PC)/88(P-I) dated 21.09.1995, the Finance Department, Government of Tripura had introduced the movement of the Sub-Inspectors who had rendered 10 years of service without promotion to the next scale, equivalent to the scale of the post of Inspector of Police. In terms thereof, some senior Inspector of Police were given that scale though they were substantively holding the post of Sub-inspector of Police. According to that memorandum dated 21.09.1995, it was also provided that after 17 years of service the Sub-Inspector of Police shall be moved to the next higher pay scale if in the meanwhile, no promotion has been effected. Few Sub-Inspectors of Police challenged the said memorandum dated 07.11.1992 [Annexure P/2] by filing a suit. The suit was decreed in their favour declaring that the said scale of pay of Rs.1450-3710 is entitled to the Sub-Inspectors of Police with effect from 01.01.1986. The challenge of the State-respondents in the first appellate court was substantively frustrated. 8. It is to be noted here that the relief that was not granted by the first appellate court to the plaintiffs [Sub-Inspectors who were litigators] was persuaded by filing a second appeal challenging that part of the finding. Those appeals were allowed by the common judgment dated 10.01.2006. The State-respondents had also preferred appeals under Section 100 of the CPC. By the judgment as referred above, the second appeals of the State-respondents were also dismissed. The judgment dated 12.04.2001 delivered in T.S. No.11 of 1999 and the judgment dated 04.06.2003 delivered in T.S. No.5 of 2001 in this regards are available with the said writ petition. Since all these judgments [including the judgment of the first appellate court] merged with the decision of the Gauhati High Court dated 10.01.2006, this court has not made elaborate reference to those judgments or its context. The relief as prayed in the suits are as follows : “(i) to declare that revised pay scale of the plaintiffs at Rs.1450-3710/- be fixed up as on 1.1.86 instead of 01.11.92 as per TPSCS (RP) Rules, 1988 with its clarification vide Memo dated 21.9.95 and the plaintiffs are legally entitled to get financial benefit accordingly. The relief as prayed in the suits are as follows : “(i) to declare that revised pay scale of the plaintiffs at Rs.1450-3710/- be fixed up as on 1.1.86 instead of 01.11.92 as per TPSCS (RP) Rules, 1988 with its clarification vide Memo dated 21.9.95 and the plaintiffs are legally entitled to get financial benefit accordingly. (ii) To declare that Gradation scale of Rs.1700-3980 be fixed up of the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 as on 29.6.89 and 30.3.91 respectively as per TPSCS (RP) Rules, 1988 with it’s clarification vide Memo dated 21.9.95 and the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are entitled to get the said financial benefit. (iii) To declare that the revised pay scale of the plaintiffs be fixed at a scale of Rs.7450-13,000/- as per TPSCS(RP) Rules, 1999 as on 1.1.95 and the plaintiffs are entitled to get all financial benefit of the same. (iv) To declare that the Memo No. 34019-40/SETTS(24)/PHQ/99 dated 5.8.99 issued by D.G. of Police, Tripura is illegal, void, inoperative, in violation of RP Rules, 1988 and 1999 and not acted upon the plaintiffs in any way.” 9. In the context as narrated above, the Gauhati High Court in the said common judgment dated 10.01.2006 delivered in RSA No. 44 of 2003, RSA No. 45 of 2003, RSA No. 46 of 2003 & RSA No. 47 of 2003 has affirmed the judgment of the courts below and on dismissing the appeal. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the said judgment is extracted hereunder : “29.The real issue was as to the effective date of entitlement to the pay scale of Rs.1700-3980/- on the basis of the provisions of RP Rules, 1988 and the aforesaid three memorandums. The first gradation scale of Rs.1450-3710/- was provided by the RP Rules of 1988 on completion on 1.1.86 or on the date of coming over to the revised scale, 10 years of service in the post without any promotion since his first appointment to the post. The first gradation scale of Rs.1450-3710/- was provided by the RP Rules of 1988 on completion on 1.1.86 or on the date of coming over to the revised scale, 10 years of service in the post without any promotion since his first appointment to the post. It was further provided under Note-3 of Part-B (Schedule-3) i.e. the Notes of Determination of Revised scales as contained in TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988 that where the employee concerned has completed on 1.1.86 or on the date of coming over to the revised scale of 18 years of service in the post without any promotion since his first appointment to the post, pay shall be fixed in the scale next above the scale which is next higher thant the revised scale. 30. The Trial Court while deciding the Issue No. iii held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the scale of Rs.1450-3710/- which was the next higher scale than the revised scale of Rs.1300-3220/- of the pre-revised scale of Rs.560-1300/- as the initial scale of the SI of Police from the date of introduction of the RP Rules, 1988 i.e. from 1.1.86. The second gradation scale of Rs.1700-3980/- was given to the SI of Police on completion of 10 years of service in the same scale without any promotion. By the OM dated 7.11.92 the pay scale of SI of Police was enhanced to Rs.1450-3710/- with effect from 1.11.92. By the next OM dated 21.9.95 making a reference to the abovequoted table under Note-3 it was provided that the next higher/next above the next higher pay scales on completion of 10 years service shall be admissible as per scales indicated in column-3 and 4 against such initial scales shown in column-2 of the table. By way of illustration in the OM, it was indicated that the posts in the pre-revised scale of Rs.560-1300/-, which had been provided with the initial revised scale of Rs.1450-3710/- would be ligible for the next higher scale of Rs.1700-3980/- on completion of 10 years of service. 31. It is on the above basis, the Appellate Curt has held that the Trial Court committed wrong in relying upon the subsequent OM dated 5.1.96. According to the Appellate Court the first OM dated 7.11.92 was superceded by the second OM dated 21.9.95 so far as the same relates to commencement of the scale. 31. It is on the above basis, the Appellate Curt has held that the Trial Court committed wrong in relying upon the subsequent OM dated 5.1.96. According to the Appellate Court the first OM dated 7.11.92 was superceded by the second OM dated 21.9.95 so far as the same relates to commencement of the scale. The OM dated 21.9.95 although not stated to be in supercesswion of the earlier OM dated 7.11.92, which was clarified only by OM dated 5.1.96, but by the same, it was provided that the higher revised scales shall be treated as the initial pay scales for the posts in question and that the next higher/next above the next higher pay scales on completion of 10 years service shall be admissible as per scales indicated in the table (column 3 and 4) against such initial scales shown in column 2 of the table. Thus by the said OM the determining factor of getting the pay scale from the date of completion of 10 years of service was laid down. 32. The matter was sought to be clarified by OM dated 5.1.96 dealing with the three categories of cases as noted in the memorandum, which has been quoted above, it was clarified that the pay of the first category of Sis, who completed 10 years of service in the posts and were getting the pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1700-3980/- appearing in column-4 of the table as on 1.11.92. It is true that the OM dated 7.11.92 provided for enhancement of the pay scale to Rs.1450-3710/- with effect from 1.11.92 and the same was clarified by OM dated 5.1.96 in reference to three categories of Sis. However, the OM dated 21.9.95 stated that the higher revised scale should be treated as initial pay scale for the posts and to the entitlement of the same on completion of 10 years service as indicated in column 3 and 4 of the table. 33. By the OM dated 7.11.92, the revised scale of Rs.1330-3200/- was replaced/enhanced to Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 1.11.92. If the modified scale of Rs.1450-3710/- was in replacement/enhancement of the scale of Rs.1330-3200/- then the same could not have made effective prospectively. 33. By the OM dated 7.11.92, the revised scale of Rs.1330-3200/- was replaced/enhanced to Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 1.11.92. If the modified scale of Rs.1450-3710/- was in replacement/enhancement of the scale of Rs.1330-3200/- then the same could not have made effective prospectively. This aspect of the matter was clarified by the OM dated 21.9.95 by which it was provided that the higher revised scale would be the initial pay scale of the post and next higher/next above the next higher would be admissible on completion of 10 years service. If that be so, there is no question of making the same effective from 1.11.92. No amount of clarification can alter the position. The enhanced scale of Rs.1450-3710/- being in replacement of the revised scale of Rs.1330-3200/- all consequential things/benefits would automatically follow in terms of RP Rules, 1988 taking the scale of Rs.1450-3710/- as the revised scale of Rs.560-1300/- (pre-revised) as further crystallized by the OM dated 21.9.95. This OM has never been superceded and has not been disowned by the Appellant State and at the same time has not been explained also as to what other meaning could be given to the same. 34. There is another aspect of the matter. The Trial Court while answering the issue No. iii as noticed above, relied upon the OM dated 21.9.95 towards answering the same in favour of the plaintiffs. It held that the enhanced/modified scale of Rs.1450-3710/- would be applicable as the initial scale of SI of Police from the date of introduction of RP Rules, 1988 i.e. from 1.1.86. It has been categorically held by the Trial Court that with the issuance of the OM dated 21.9.95 the earlier OM dated 7.11.92 got superceded. If that be so, the Trial Court could not have ignored the same very OM dated 21.9.95 while deciding the issue No. iv and relied upon the superceded OM dated 7.11.92 together with its clarification vide OM dated 5.1.96. Thus, there is inherent contradictions staring on the face of it. On the same analogy on which the issue No. iii has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs which has been accepted by the State by not preferring any appeal, the issue No. iv was also required to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs, which the Trial Court failed to do. 35. On the same analogy on which the issue No. iii has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs which has been accepted by the State by not preferring any appeal, the issue No. iv was also required to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs, which the Trial Court failed to do. 35. In view of the above, the first Appellate court rightly interfered with the same and answered the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. If as per decision in issue No. iii, the enhanced/modified pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- is effective from 1.1.86, there is no question of effecting the gradation scale of Rs.1700-3980/- from 1.1.92 instead of making the same effective as per the parameter/yardstick laid down in RP Rules, 1988 and the OM dated 21.9.95 i.e. completion of 10 years of service in the post of without any promotion. 36. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the Issue No. iv has been rightly decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the Appellate Court and rightly interfered with the findings of the Trial Court in reference to the OM dated 21.9.95 taking into consideration all the relevant factors. Consequently the decision of the first Appellate Court in respect of the Issue No.iv, stands upheld. As a result of this finding, the RSA No. 44/2003 and 45/2003 stand dismissed. 37. This now leads us to the controversy relating to the Issue No.viii in respect of which the appeals preferred by the plaintiffs have been admitted on the abovenoted substantial questions of law. 38. The Issue No. viii is “whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get revised pay scale of Rs.7450-13,000/- as on 1.1.96 as per ROP Rules of 1999 and its third amendment dated 22.7.99 (Ext.- 6).” 39. The term Existing Scale has been defined under Rule 3(b) as the scale shown in column-1 of Annexure-(A) as applicable to the posts held by the Govt. Servant or the gradation scale applicable to the posts or, as the case may be personal scale applicable to such Govt. Servant, as on the 1st day of January, 1996 whether in a substantive or officiating capacity. The term Revised Scale has been defined in Rule-3(d) of the ROP Rules, 1999 as the corresponding revised scale of pay in relating to the existing scale of pay, introduced from 1.1.96 as indicated in col. Servant, as on the 1st day of January, 1996 whether in a substantive or officiating capacity. The term Revised Scale has been defined in Rule-3(d) of the ROP Rules, 1999 as the corresponding revised scale of pay in relating to the existing scale of pay, introduced from 1.1.96 as indicated in col. -4 of Annexure-“C” or the revised scale corresponding to the existing gradation scale applicable to the post as per Annexure-“A” (except State cadre services). The definition of Gradation as defined in Rule-3(i) reads as follows: “Gradation” means advancement of scale under Part-B or C of Schedule-III of the Tripura State Civil Services, in short TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, as per Rule 5 (3) thereof. The higher scale if granted to an employee is referred to as “Gradation Scale.” 40. Rule-4 of the ROP Rules, 1999 deals with “Scale of Pay of Posts”, as per which, from the date of commencement of the rules, the scale of pay of every post/grade whose existing scale is specified in column-(3) of Annexure-“C” shall be as specified in column-(4) thereof with effect from 1.1.96. Certain explanations with examples have been furnished under Rule-5 under the head Drawal of Pay in the Revised Scales. The term alongwith Example-3 reads as follows : “Drawal of pay in the Revised scales.- State as otherwise provided in the rules, a Government servant shall draw pay in the revised scale applicable to the post/service or gradation scale applicable to the post to which he is appointed.” “An UDC had scale of 1300-3220/- on 01.01.96 after 10 years of service as UDC without promotion. The gradation scale and pre-revised scale corresponding to revised scale of the UDC post is same with effect from 01.01.96. On 01.01.96, the pay may be fixed in 5000-10,300/-. However, in another case an UDC has gradation scale of 1450-3710/- on 01.01.96 after 18 years of service as UDC without promotion. Since the gradation scale is higher than pre-revised scale corresponding to revised scale of the posts, pay may be fixed again in 5000-10,300/- on 01.01.96.” 41. In Annexure-“C” to the ROP Rules, 1999, the existing scale of the UDA has been shown as Rs.1250-2890/- and the revised scale with effect from 1.1.96 as Rs.4200-8650/-. The existing scale of the next higher grade of Head Clerk etc. has been shown as Rs.1450-3710/- and the revised scale as Rs.5000-10,300/-. In Annexure-“C” to the ROP Rules, 1999, the existing scale of the UDA has been shown as Rs.1250-2890/- and the revised scale with effect from 1.1.96 as Rs.4200-8650/-. The existing scale of the next higher grade of Head Clerk etc. has been shown as Rs.1450-3710/- and the revised scale as Rs.5000-10,300/-. It is on this analogy, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs are also entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.7450-13,000/-, same being the corresponding same being the corresponding revised scale of the existing scale of Rs.1700-3980/-, although, as against the pre-revised scale of Rs.1450-3710/-, the revised scale has been shown as Rs.5000-10,300/-. It has further been contended in reference to Note-1 appearing at page 87 of the ROP Rules, 1999 that it is only the posts not appearing in the list will have revised scale as shown in column-2, Annexure-“A” corresponding to the existing scale in column-1. 42. Annexure-“A” of the Rules, prescribes the revised scale of Rs.5500-10,700/- against the existing scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/-. However, under Annexure-“C” against the existing scale of Rs.1450-3710/- in respect of SI of Police has been shown revised to Rs.5000-10,300/- while that of Rs.1700-3980/- applicable to Inspector of Police to that of Rs.7450-13,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since they are in the scale of 1700-3980/-(pre-revised), they are entitled to the revised scale of Rs.7450-13,000/-, which position was also prevalent under the RP Rules of 1988 in respect of pre-revised scales. 43. The Trial Court after noticing the provisions of ROP Rules,1999 naturally found that the scale of Rs.7400-13,000/- is the revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/-. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that by notification dated 21.9.95 the scale of Rs.1700-3980/-, which was equal to the scale of Inspector of Police, was given to the SI of Police on completion of 10 years of service from 1.11.92. As per Annexure-“C” to the ROP Rules of 1999, in the Police Department the revised scale of Rs.7450-13,000/- has been shown against the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980-/-. As per Annexure-“C” to the ROP Rules of 1999, in the Police Department the revised scale of Rs.7450-13,000/- has been shown against the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980-/-. The following observation of the Trial Court is significant to be noted: “So it is clear that the scale of pay in respect of post/grade whose existing scale against that post or grade is specified in column-3 of the Annexure-“C” shall be specified as per column No.4 thereof w.e.f. 1.1.96 and as per 3rd amendment (Ext.6) the benefit which was given to an employee as a gradation scale of pay upto 31.12.98 is also allowed.” 44. However, the Trial Court on the reasoning that against the post of SI of Police the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/- is not specified in column No.3 of Annexure-“C” and thus as per clause-4 noted above, the scale of SI of Police cannot be fixed as per Annexure-“C”, answered the issue against the plaintiffs. At the same time, the Trial Court recorded the admitted position that the plaintiffs were given the scale of Rs.1700-3980/- on or from 1.11.92, which was equal to the pre-revised scale of Inspector of Police. It went on to observe that although, such upgraded scale was provided to SI of Police which was at par wih the scale of Inspector of Police considering the stagnation being faced without any promotion, but the same did not mean that the plaintiffs would not be given the revised scale of Inspector of Police. Inspite of such clear observation the Trial Court held that although the plaintiffs were given the pre-revised scale of Inspector of Police, they are not entitled to the revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/-. It further held that it being the discretion of the authority to upgrade the scale of any post considering the importance and status of that post, but the benefits accrued by way of such upgraded scale, which is the scale of superior post. It is on such analogy the Trial Court declined to grant the relief to the plaintiffs and answered the Issue No.viii in the negative. 45.The Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and order dealing with the Issue no.viii simply referred to the definitions of Existing Scale, Revised Scale and Rule-4 of the ROP Rules 1999 under the head “Scale of Pay of Post” referred to above without any discussions on the same. 45.The Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and order dealing with the Issue no.viii simply referred to the definitions of Existing Scale, Revised Scale and Rule-4 of the ROP Rules 1999 under the head “Scale of Pay of Post” referred to above without any discussions on the same. According to the Appellate Court the plaintiffs reached the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/- under CAS for not having any promotion in the same post within 10 years of service and thus they are not entitled to the revised scale of the said pre-revised scale. While holding so, the Appellate Court has referred to the 3rd proviso to Rule10 of the RP Rules, 1999 dealing with CAS, which reads as follows: “(iii) The existing employees who have already availed the prescribed No. of scale advancements by way of promotion or gradation under Part-B or C of TSCS (revised pay) rules, 1988 as per Rule 5(3) thereof as on 01.01.99 after entry in the service, will not be eligible for any further advancement.” 46. The definitions of Existing Scale, Revised Scale and Gradation coupled with Rule-4 of the rules, which have been noted above made the position clear. As per the definition of Existing Scale, it includes the Gradation Scale applicable to the posts or the personal scale applicable to the Govt. Servant. The definition of Revised Scale means the corresponding revised scale of pay in relation to the existing scale of pay introduced from 1.1.96. The term “Gradation” has been quoted above, which makes a reference to Part-B of Schedule-III of RP Rules, 1988. In terms of this definition, gradation means advancement of scale in reference to Part-B of Schedule-III of Rules, 1988 as per Rule 5(3) thereof. The higher scale if granted to an employee is referred as “Gradation Scale”. Rule, 5(3) of RP Rules, 1988 reads as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sub-rule (1) and (2), where in pursuance of the note below Part-A of Schedule-I and the notes, if any, in Part-A, Part-B and Part-C of Schedule-III and notes in column 7 thereof, a Govt. Servant is entiled to pay in a revised scale different from the one applicable to the post to which he is appointed, he shall draw pay in such different revised scale.” 47. Servant is entiled to pay in a revised scale different from the one applicable to the post to which he is appointed, he shall draw pay in such different revised scale.” 47. Going by the aforesaid provisions of the ROP Rules, 1999 including the example No.3 in respect of UDC quoted above, and when there is no dispute that the plaintiffs were in the pay scale of Rs.1700-3980/- (pre-revised), which was the scale of pay of the promotional post of SI of Police, I see no reason as to why the plaintiffs would not be entitled to the revised pay scale of the said pre-revised scale. In this connection the corrigendum dated 12.10.88 a copy of which is available on record and about which a reference has also been made in the OM dated 21.9.95 may be referred to. In terms of this corrigendum, Note-5 was inserted below Note-4(b) of the RP Rules, 1988 and this Note-5 reads as follows: “Note-5:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Notes 3 and 4 no Government servant shallbe allowed under the provisions of (b)(2) of Note 3 and Note 4 a revised scale higher that that of his next promotion post.” 48. Thus, from the above, it will be seen that a revised scale may be admissible in reference to the next promotion post, but not beyond that. The Trial Court broadly agreeing with the plea of the plaintiffs for their entitlement to the revised pay scale of Rs.7450-13,000/- denied the same to them on the ground that same is the revised scale of the promotion post of Inspector of Police, unmindful of the fact that the plaintiffs were already in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/-, which was the pre-revised scale of Inspector of Police. 49. If the plaintiffs had been put to the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/- , I see no reason as to why they shall not be entitled to the revised scale of the pre-revised scale i.e. Rs.7450-13,000/-. The denial of the benefit on ground of there being bar under Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999, which deals with CAS will be opposed to the actual position which has emerged from the discussions made above. The denial of the benefit on ground of there being bar under Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999, which deals with CAS will be opposed to the actual position which has emerged from the discussions made above. It is in this context, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants argued that the gradation scale was not given to the plaintiffs as career advancement, but was made applicable to the plaintiffs as per RP Rules of 1988 and the three notifications referred to above. Clause iii of Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999 on which the first Appellate Court placed reliance is not on the issue. The said clause is only in respect of department of further advancement by way of promotion or gradation, but not on the issue of entitlement to the corresponding revised scale of a pre-revised scale, which in the instant case is Rs.7450-13,000/- as against the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/-.” 10. Few writ petitions were filed much after the suits by those Sub-Inspectors of Police were determined and the batch of writ petitions being WP(C) No. 144 of 2005 [Jiban Lal Roy & Others vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 189 of 2006 [Sri Ajoy Majumder & Others vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 230 of 2005 [Bhushan Ch. Datta & Others vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 215 of 2006 [Sri Mani Chandra Sinha & Others vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 356 of 2005 [Inspr. Sanjoy Biswas & Others vs State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No. 443 of 2005 [S.I. Gopal Sinha & Others vs State of Tripura & Others] and WP(C) No. 177 of 2006 [Sri Mayajoy Rupini & Others vs State of Tripura & Others] were allowed having placed on full reliance on the said judgment dated 10.01.2006 as passed by the Gauhati High Court in those Second Appeals on observing as under : “28. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent that the petitioners who joined the post of S.I. of Police/Supervisor as the case may be on or before 01.01.1986 shall be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and those who joined the said post after 01.01.1986 shall be entitled to the said pay-scale from the date of joining the post. The petitioners who completed 10 years of satisfactory service witout any promotion shall be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.7450-13,000/- from the date of completion of 10 years of service in the same post i.e. S.I. of Police/Supervisor as the case may be. The petitioners who completed 17 years of satisfactory service without any promotion shall further be entitled to the graded scale of Rs.7800-15,100/- w.e.f. the date of completion of 17 years of continuous service without promotion in the same post as per Rule 10 of R.O.P. Rules, 1999. Since all the petitioners already retired in the meantime, the benefits shall be given notionally and there shall be no arrears whatsoever.” 11. Mr. Somik Deb and Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have categorically stated that the writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are as well covered by the said decisions of the Gauhati High Court and of this High Court and hence, the similar benefit may be extended to the writ petitioners waiving the objection of laches as raised by the respondents. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on a few decisions of the apex court to overcome the doctrine of laches. In support of their contention, they have relied on M.R. Gupta Vs Union of India & Others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 where the apex court had occasion to lay down the law on recurring wrong. Almost in the similar context, the apex court had held as under: “5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant’s grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant’s claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant’s claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculate ed on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claims is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, as such, promotion etc. would also be subject to the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by him laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation the application cannot be treated as time barted since it is based on a recurring cause of action.” 12. In the case of Union of India & Others vs Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 the apex court had enunciated the law as follows : “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a post period the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” Similarly in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs Yogendra Shrivastava reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 , the apex court had unambiguously held as under : “18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, th 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 relected 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 ].” Thus, the apex court has clearly stated that when the case relates to recurring and successive wrongs then the doctrine of laches would not eclipse the right of the petitioner. 13. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in particular has also referred to another decision of the apex court in K.C. Bajaj and Others versus Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 777 where the apex court has deprecated the practice of granting relief to one section of the employees denying the same relief to the other section of the same class of employees for highly technical reasons or for not approaching the court in time. The apex court, having referred to the decisions in State of Maharashtra versus Digambar reported in 1995 4 SCC 683 , has observed in K. C. Bajaj that the ratio of Digambar cannot be invoked to justify the pick-and-choose methodology in resisting the claim of similarly situated persons as adopted by the Union of India or in resisting the claim of similarly situated persons. Such an approach by the Union of India, as held by the apex court in K.C. Bajaj is ex facie arbitrary, unjust and resulted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. From the other side Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that those petitioners who were appointed after 01.01.1996 cannot claim any relief inasmuch as both the decisions as referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are concerned with the Sub-Inspector of Police who were appointed before 01.01.1986 and after 01.01.1986 but before 01.01.1996 inasmuch as the fundamental dispute was relating to whether the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/- would be entitled to the person holding the substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 01.01.1986 or that would be from 01.12.1992 in terms of the said memorandum dated 07.11.1992. Therefore, the persons who are appointed as the Sub-Inspector of Police after 01.01.1996 cannot maintain their writ petitions inasmuch as the said controversy cannot be relevent in their case. That apart, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the government has not considered as yet the implementation of the said judgments and hence it can hardly be stated at this stage, that those judgments have reached their finality. It would be apposite at this stage to refer the revised scales of pay those have been effected in respect of the pay scale of Rs.1300-3220 and Rs.1450-3710 in terms of the ROP Rules, 1999 : SL. NO. Scale of Pay under ROP Rules, 1988 Scale of Pay under ROP Rules, 1999 1 1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220 4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650 2 1450-60-1930-65-2450-70-3710 5000-1030-6690-150-8940-170-1030 15. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted that by way of the clarification, Home Department, Government of Tripura by the communication under No.F.1(12)-PD/2002 dated 06.01.2004 [Annexure R/7 to the reply] has communicated to the Director General of Police having reference to one of his letters dated 05.09.2003 as under : “It is clarified that pay of Shri Amar Kishore Datta, Sub-Inspector (UB). PHQ shall be fixed in the higher revised pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 26.07.1989 for completion of 10 years of service in the post without promotion under Part-B (Sch-III) of the ROP Rules, 1988 as the pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/- being the initial revised pay scale for the post of Sub-Inspector (UB) under the ROP Rules, 1988. Thereafter, his pay shall be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1700-3980/- on 01.11.1992 as per un-gradation of pay scale of the post from Rs.1300-3220/- to Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 01.11.1992 vide F.D’s Office Memorandum No. F.4(32)-FIN(PC)/92(L-1) dt. 05.01.1996. Thereafter his pay shall be fixed in the corresponding revised pay scale Rs.5500-10700/- under ROP Rules, 1999 on the date he opted for coming over to the ROP Rules, 1999 and again in the next higher revised pay scale of Rs.6500-12300/- as CAS-II on 01.01.1999 for completion of another 7 years of service in the first higher pay scale provided he has not get promotion to higher post in the meantime.” 16. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners didnot raise any objection for more than two decades and now they have approached this court for taking the advantage of the two decisions as referred above. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners didnot raise any objection for more than two decades and now they have approached this court for taking the advantage of the two decisions as referred above. It is well laid public policy, as approved by the apex court, that the persons who sleep over their right cannot be allowed to come at their convenient time to ask for the relief. The doctrine of laches, according to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel is the outcome of the public policy. The governance cannot be pushed to unpredictibility. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners who were not borne in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police before 01.01.1996 are not entitled to get the benefit of the initial pay scale of Rs.1450-3710 in any manner for obvious reasons. Hence their writ petitions be straightway dismissed as those are frivolous and wholly misconceived. 17. Having regard to the contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, this court would observe that the contention of Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in respect of the writ petitioners who were appointed in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police after 01.01.1996 is highly persuasive and thus, it is accepted by this court, inasmuch as the basic controversy as addressed by the two decisions as relied on by the petitioners donot even remotely relate to the claim of those writ petitioners, who were appointed before 01.01.1996. Further, having not urged any relief in the writ petition and even not throwing any challenge against any provisions of the ROP Rules, 1999, those writ petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference. Further, having not urged any relief in the writ petition and even not throwing any challenge against any provisions of the ROP Rules, 1999, those writ petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference. In view of this, the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 527 of 2016, WP(C) No. 528 of 2016, WP(C) No. 529 of 2016, WP(C) No. 557 of 2016, WP(C) No. 560 of 2016, WP(C) No. 561 of 2016, WP(C) No. WP(C) No. 572 of 2016, WP(C) No. 573 of 2016, WP(C) No. 574 of 2016, WP(C) No. 575 of 2016, WP(C) No. 579 of 2016, WP(C) No. 580 of 2016, WP(C) No. 803 of 2016, WP(C) No. 805 of 2016, WP(C) No. 806 of 2016, WP(C) No. 808 of 2016, WP(C) No. 809 of 2016, WP(C) No. 810 of 2016, WP(C) No. 811 of 2016, WP(C) No. 812 of 2016, WP(C) No. 814 of 2016, WP(C) No. 815 of 2016, WP(C) No. 823 of 2016 and WP(C) No. 824 of 2016 are dismissed as they were not entitled to get the un-revised pay scale of Rs.1450-3710 for the simple reason that they were not appointed prior to 01.01.1996. It is also noticed that in some of the writ petitions even the date of appointment as the SI of Police have not been definitely mentioned. As a measure of abundant caution it is declared that if it is found that any of the writ petitioners has been appointed after 01.01.1996, their writ petition shall also be similarly treated and be dismissed. 18. Now this court will consider the submissions in respect of the remaining writ petitions in this batch. In view of the two decisions as referred above, this court is inclined to declare that the initial pay of the Sub-Inspectors of Police [Armed and Un-armed/SI of Police (Border Wing)] or Supervisor shall be borned in the same level fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710 with effect from 01.01.1986 and they are entitled to the said pay scale in terms of the fixation formula as provided in the ROP Rules, 1988 and with effect from 01.01.1986 or from the date of their respective appointments. It is further clarified that on completion of their ten years of service in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police without any promotion they will be entitled to the movement to the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/-. It is further clarified that on completion of their ten years of service in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police without any promotion they will be entitled to the movement to the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/-. Thus, instead of their initial pay being fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.1300-3220, their initial pay shall be fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.1450-3710/-. It is further declared that on completion of ten years of service, in the scale of pay of Rs.1450-3710/- in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police without any promotion, the petitioners shall be moved the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/- or its corresponding scale of pay of Rs.7450-13000/- under the ROP Rules, 1999 [see judgment dated 10.01.2006] and the petitioners would be entitled to the scale of Rs.2000-4410/- and its corresponding revised scales by way of movement if the petitioners continued in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police without any promotion on completion of seventeen years of service without any promotion. Even thereafter, if the petitioners are entitled, they will be entitled to get the benefits of Carrer Advancement Scheme (modified) with effect from 01.01.1999 under Section 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999. The petitioners who were appointed after 01.01.1996 shall wholly be guided by the ROP Rules, 1999. As there is no challenge against any provision of the ROP Rules their writ petitions being bereft of merit are dismissed. However, this observation shall not create any embargo in their approaching the court, if they are aggrieved by any provisions of the said ROP Rules, 1999 and they are permitted to do so. As there is no challenge against any provision of the ROP Rules their writ petitions being bereft of merit are dismissed. However, this observation shall not create any embargo in their approaching the court, if they are aggrieved by any provisions of the said ROP Rules, 1999 and they are permitted to do so. Hence, the writ petition being WP(C) No. 491 of 2016, WP(C) No. 525 of 2016, WP(C) No. 530 of 2016, WP(C) No. 531 of 2016, WP(C) No. 532 of 2016, WP(C) No. 533 of 2016, WP(C) No. 534 of 2016, WP(C) No. 535 of 2016, WP(C) No. 558 of 2016, WP(C) No. 559 of 2016, WP(C) No. 568 of 2016, WP(C) No. 569 of 2016, WP(C) No. 570 of 2016, WP(C) No. 571 of 2016, WP(C) No. 578 of 2016, WP(C) No. 621 of 2016, WP(C) No. 622 of 2016, WP(C) No. 623 of 2016, WP(C) No. 624 of 2016, WP(C) No. 625 of 2016, WP(C) No. 626 of 2016, WP(C) No. 627 of 2016, WP(C) No. 628 of 2016, WP(C) No. 730 of 2016, WP(C) No. 766 of 2016, WP(C) No. 767 of 2016, WP(C) No. 768 of 2016, WP(C) No. 769 of 2016, WP(C) No. 770 of 2016, WP(C) No. 771 of 2016, WP(C) No. 772 of 2016, WP(C) No. 773 of 2016, WP(C) No. 774 of 2016, WP(C) No. 775 of 2016, WP(C) No. 804 of 2016, WP(C) No. 807 of 2016, WP(C) No. 813 of 2016, WP(C) No. 821 of 2016, WP(C) No. 822 of 2016, WP(C) No. 825 of 2016, WP(C) No. 826 of 2016, WP(C) No. 827 of 2016, WP(C) No. 828 of 2016, WP(C) No. 829 of 2016, WP(C) No. 837 of 2016, WP(C) No. 838 of 2016, WP(C) No. 839 of 2016, WP(C) No. 840 of 2016, WP(C) No. 841 of 2016, WP(C) No. 842 of 2016, WP(C) No. 843 of 2016, WP(C) No. 844 of 2016, WP(C) No. 845 of 2016, WP(C) No. 846 of 2016, WP(C) No. 885 of 2016, WP(C) No. 886 of 2016, WP(C) No. 887 of 2016, WP(C) No. 888 of 2016, WP(C) No. 889 of 2016, WP(C) No. 890 of 2016, WP(C) No. 891 of 2016, WP(C) No. 892 of 2016, WP(C) No. 893 of 2016, WP(C) No. 894 of 2016, WP(C) No. 895 of 2016, WP(C) No. 904 of 2016, WP(C) No. 29 of 2017, WP(C) No. 30 of 2017, WP(C) No. 47 of 2017, & WP(C) No. 729 of 2016 stands allowed in terms of the above. There shall be no order as to costs.