JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel and Mr. A. Bhomwik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned GA, Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. GA, Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel & Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation-respondent. 2. All these writ petitions, being WP(C) 1285/2016 [Subash Ch. Majumder @ Subash Majumder Vs. State of Tripura and Ors], WP(C) 152/2017 [Pradip Guha Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 156/2017 [Md. Gias Uddin Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C)162/2017 [Mangal Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 303/2017 [Kalidas Debnath Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 305/2017 [Gopal Ch. Saha Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 306/2017 [Gopal Ch. Karmakar Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 368/2017 [Santi Bhusan Saha Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 518/2017 [Haradhan Biswas Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as all these writ petitions are set up on identical set of facts and question of law. 3. There is no controversy that the writ petitioners in WP(C) 1258/2016, WP(C) 152/2017 and WP(C) 362/2017 have already retired from their service and they have also received their retiral benefits. The other writ petitioners of this batch of writ petitions are still working under the Tripura Road Transport Corporation (TRTC) as represented by learned counsel, Mr. P. Dutta. 4. There is also no controversy that the petitioners were/are Heavy Vehicle Drivers borne in the Driver Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs.1020-2620/- (pre-revised) and they had/have been performing their duties to the entire satisfaction of the authorities. The Corporation respondent while revising the scales of pay of the petitioners in terms of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, according to the petitioners, have committed grave illegality as the petitioners were considered as Driver, not as Heavy Vehicle Driver. Thus, their scale of pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.3300-7100 instead of their due pay scale of Rs.4000-7890/-. From the flow-chart the pay scale under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, the relevant scale in the pay band is available. The scale of pay of Rs.4000-7890 was revised to pay band-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-10-24000/- with grade pay of Rs.2,000/-. From the flow-chart the pay scale under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, the relevant scale in the pay band is available. The scale of pay of Rs.4000-7890 was revised to pay band-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-10-24000/- with grade pay of Rs.2,000/-. On the other hand, the Drivers borne in the scale of pay of Rs. 3000-7100/- were granted the pay band – 2 in the similar scale but with less grade pay of Rs.800 by way of revision. 5. However, subsequently by the memorandum under No.F.1(39)-TRTC/ESTT/08/S/ROP/HVD/2010/1070 dated 27.12.2010 all the petitioners were given the scale of pay of Rs.4000-7980/- instead of Rs.3300-7100 as the Heavy Vehicle Driver but they were not given the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally up to 30.09.1998 and actual benefit from 10.10.1998. That is the reason why the petitioners have approached this court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioners have, as submitted by Mr. R. Dutta, submitted several representations for giving them the correct scale of pay but that did not bring any positive yield. As a result a few Heavy Vehicle Drivers, having been similarly circumstanced as that of the present writ petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No.452 of 2012 which was allowed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 04.12.2015 observing that the petitioners were no doubt the Heavy Vehicle Drivers borne in the grade-II but wrongly they were treated as Driver and their pay was fixed in the scale meant for those drivers. 7. It has been observed in the said judgment as under:- “9. It clearly transpires that the petitioners were treated as the Driver without any rhyme or reason. Their initial appointments were as Heavy Vehicle Driver, Grade-II. As is already reflected that in the year 1986, there were three grades of Heavy Vehicle Drivers. Initial entry grade was the Heavy Vehicle Driver, Grade II, the middle grade was the Heavy Vehicle Driver, Grade-I and the final grade was the Heavy Vehicle Driver (Selection Grade). If the regulation is read in the perspective, it would appear that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as the Heavy Vehicle Driver, Grade-II not as the Driver, Grade-II as there was no such post in the recruitment regulations at the relevant point of time. If the regulation is read in the perspective, it would appear that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as the Heavy Vehicle Driver, Grade-II not as the Driver, Grade-II as there was no such post in the recruitment regulations at the relevant point of time. Even in the entire counter-affidavit, the respondents have not clarified how they had appointed the petitioners in the post of Driver, Grade-II. No record has been placed in support of their plea. Moreover, from the impugned memorandum dated 27.12.2010, it further transpires that the respondents have corrected their mistakes by allowing the petitioners their due scale as Heavy Vehicle Driver, Grade-II, but with restriction as stated. 10. Having held so, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.4000-7890/- which was later on restructured to Pay Band-2, meaning the scale of Rs.5310-24000/- with the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- from 01.01.2006 in terms of the ROP Rules, 2009. Now the question that falls for consideration is that whether can the petitioners get the arrears of pay and allowances for their approaching the court in a belated stage or not? In this regard, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in G. P. Doval and others Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 1527 where the apex court has observed as under: “A grievance was made that the petitioners have moved this Court after a long unexplained delay and the Court should not grant any relief to them. It was pointed to that the provision seniority list was drawn up on March 22, 1971 and the petitions have been filed in the years 1983. The respondents therefore submitted that the Court should throw out the petitions on the ground of delay, latches and acquiescence. It was said that promotions granted on the basis of impugned seniority list were not questioned by the petitioners and they have acquiesced into it. We are not disposed to accede to this request because respondent 1 to 3 have not finalised the seniority list for a period of more than 12 years and are operating the same for further promotion to the utter disadvantage of the petitioners. Petitioners went on making representations after representations which did not yield any response, reply or relief. We are not disposed to accede to this request because respondent 1 to 3 have not finalised the seniority list for a period of more than 12 years and are operating the same for further promotion to the utter disadvantage of the petitioners. Petitioners went on making representations after representations which did not yield any response, reply or relief. Coupled with this is the fact that the petitioners belong to the lower echelons of service and it is not difficult to visualise that they may find it extremely difficult to rush to the court. Therefore, the contention must be rejected.” 11. For the petitioners, another decision of the Orissa High Court in Aruna Kumar Swain and another v. State of Orissa and others reported in AIR 2014 Ori 116 has been relied. In the report, it has been observed that: “Thus, if a case falls under the order covered by Section 7-C (4), it will create an enforceable right and the Court is bound to enforce the same under Article 226 of the Constitution. An enforceable right cannot be defeated on the ground of financial incapacity. There is no restriction on this Court under Article 226 to pass appropriate orders for enforcing fundamental or legal right.” 12. It is well settled that when the competent authority deals with the pay and allowances, they cannot deal it whimsically and carelessly. They must exercise the due caution very effectively, so that no right or entitlement is unnecessarily jeopardised for their grossly unreasonable conduct. Here, the respondents No.3 and 4 did not exercise that caution. 13. Having regard to these aspects of the matter and on the analogy under which the petitioners were granted the scale of pay of Rs.4000-7890/- or the benefits of the subsequent revisions, this court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get the scale of Rs.4000-7890/- and/or its restructured Pay Band w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and their pay with the Grade Pay shall be fixed in terms of the provisions of the ROP Rules, 1999 in the same manner as adopted by the TRTC. However, the respondents may defer the payment for reasonable time but by any rate not beyond 12 months from today. 14. Therefore, the memorandum dated 27.12.2010, Annexure-G, is interfered with and set aside to the extent of its effect. However, the respondents may defer the payment for reasonable time but by any rate not beyond 12 months from today. 14. Therefore, the memorandum dated 27.12.2010, Annexure-G, is interfered with and set aside to the extent of its effect. The pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be fixed within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the petitioners who have retired or would retire, their payment shall be made within three months from today or with the retiral benefits, whichever is applicable.” 8. Learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta and Mr. A. Bhowmik appearing for the petitioners have submitted that this batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by the said judgment as there is no distinguishing element. On the other hand, Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned GA appearing for the State respondents in WP(C) 1285/2016 has referred to the subsequent notification of the Finance Department under No. F.6(5)-FIN (PC)/99 dated 08.12.1999 where the Finance Department by way of clarification has modified the actual date of financial effect. For purpose of reference the relevant paragraph is profitably extracted hereunder:- “3. Modified Para 9: “The pay n the Revised Scale shall be fixed on 01.01.1996 or on the date of coming over to the Revised Scale as per exercised option. However, pay shall be notionally fixed up to the period of 30.09.1998. No arrears of pay for the period 01.01.1996 to 30.09.1998 shall be paid to the employees. The financial benefits accruing due to fixation of pay in the Revised Scale of Pay shall be payable from 01.10.1998. However, the amount of arrears for the period from 01.10.1998 to 31.03.1999 shall be credited and impounded to the GPF/CPF/Small Savings instruments/GPF, if any, of the concerned employee. The amount of such impounded arrears shall remain locked upto 31.03.2001 and such amount shall not be reckoned for the purpose of calculating admissible advances or final withdrawals from the GPF/CPF/Small Savings instruments till 31.03.2001. The financial benefits accruing due to fixation of pay in the Revised Scale of Pay shall be payable from 01.04.1999 in cash.”” 9. It is apparent from the said para 3 that the financial benefit has been withheld up to 30.09.1998 and it was declared that the amount of arrears for the period from 01.10.1998 to 31.03.1999 shall be credited and impounded to the GPF/CPF/Small Savings instruments/GPF, if any, of the concerned employee. It is apparent from the said para 3 that the financial benefit has been withheld up to 30.09.1998 and it was declared that the amount of arrears for the period from 01.10.1998 to 31.03.1999 shall be credited and impounded to the GPF/CPF/Small Savings instruments/GPF, if any, of the concerned employee. The amount of such impounded arrears shall remain locked up to 31.03.2001. 10. Mr. Majumdar has submitted further that the earlier judgment has been implemented. So far this aspect is concerned it even thereafter operates as the precedent. The respondents cannot be also restrained from taking this objection as it is permissible under the Rules. This Court is totally in agreement that if any observation is made having not properly acquainted any provision the respondents even after implementation, in the subsequent cases can take such objection on the basis of the correct position of law. No law can debar them from taking such position. In view of this, that part of the judgment where it is stated that the financial benefit shall accrue to the petitioner from 01.01.1996 shall not operate against the respondents. The provision of the ROP Rules or the clarification thereof will have its primacy. For purpose of releasing actual financial benefit the effective date would be 01.10.1998 and the financial benefit shall be released accordingly. 11. Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Corporation-respondent has submitted that the petitioner has come to the Court after a long delay and as such they may not be given the financial benefit for the whole period. In response to the said statement made by Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Corporation-respondent, Mr. R. Dutta and Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the wrong was committed by the Corporation-respondent and despite repeated representations for correction of such wrong they did not take any action and therefore they cannot be permitted to raise this plea of delay. 12. It is the property of the employees concerned to get the financial benefit as entitled to them as per the rules and for not approaching court in time that cannot be taken away. Such benefit cannot be curtailed by the notification that has been issued by the Finance Department and for inaction in implementation of such notification, the petitioners cannot be blamed. 13. Such benefit cannot be curtailed by the notification that has been issued by the Finance Department and for inaction in implementation of such notification, the petitioners cannot be blamed. 13. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit of the scale for the Heavy Vehicle Driver borne in grade-II and accordingly there pay shall be fixed on 01.01.1996 in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-7890 but the actual financial benefit they would get from 01.10.1998. 14. The other office orders, contrary to this, are to be ignored and they shall be treated as inoperative in view of this judgment. Those petitioners who have already retired from service, their last pay accordingly be determined and gratuity and other retiral benefits be revised. The entire exercise including the payment of arrears shall be completed within a period of six months from the date when a copy of this order would be furnished to the respondents. 15. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.