JUDGMENT : All the writ petitions, mentioned above, are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb Gupta for the petitioners and learned G.A., Mr. T. Dutta Majumder for the State-respondents. 3. Learned G.A. placed before this Court Note Nos. 16 and 17 of the State Govt. in file No.1 (12126)/HR/DHHS/2016 which covers all the cases. It is submitted by Learned G.A. that the claim of the petitioners in the present set of writ petitions are same and identical to that of the claims of the writ petitioners made in the judgment dated 08.10.2013 in WP(C) No.7 of 2006 as well as the judgment dated 18.03.2014, passed in WP(C) 305 of 2005 and WP(C) 306 of 2005. So, the present writ petitions also may be disposed of with similar observation. 4. The writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Production Assistant under the Directorate of Handloom, Handicrafts and Sericulture, Govt. of Tripura which was earlier named as skilled workers. Some of the labourers appointed as skilled workers raised a labour dispute in the Industrial Tribunal which was registered as Labour Case No.1/1998 and that was decided in their favour by the tribunal on 01.04.1979. That order ultimately was implemented by the respondent Directorate. Subsequently there were several writ petitions seeking similar relief by the similarly situated persons and the Writ Petition No.7 of 2006 was disposed of allowing the claim of the petitioners on 08.10.2013. Subsequently several writ petitions were filed by similarly situated workers and those were allowed. By dint of the present writ petitions the petitioners seeking identical relief. 5. Learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb Gupta for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners are covered by the judgment of this Court dated 29.04.2014 in WP(C) 490 of 2005 and order dated 08.04.2015, passed in WP(C) 201 of 2014. Copies of those judgments have been annexed with the writ petitions. 6. The State-respondents benevolently agreed and decided to grant similar relief to the petitioners since the earlier decision of this Court covers the claim of the petitioners. Hence, all the writ petitions are allowed. 7. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. 6. The State-respondents benevolently agreed and decided to grant similar relief to the petitioners since the earlier decision of this Court covers the claim of the petitioners. Hence, all the writ petitions are allowed. 7. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra Srivastava, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 , the arrears shall be restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of these writ petitions. All the writ petitions were filed on 15.07.2016. So, the arrears shall be confined to three years prior to the date of filing. The similar and identical relief as was granted in the earlier writ petitions mentioned above shall be allowed to the petitioners. Copy of the judgment dated 18.03.2014, passed in WP(C) 305 of 2005 and copy of order dated 08.04.2015 in WP(C) 201 of 2014 made part of this record. A copy of the Note Nos. 16 and 17 be kept in the record. 8. The order should be complied within 180 days. 9. The writ petitions, therefore, stand disposed of. 10. Parties to bear their own costs.