JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA, Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel & Mr. B Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Mr. P Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation-respondent. 2. All these writ petitions, being WP(C) 119/2017 [Swapan Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and Ors], WP(C) 120/2017 [Ranjan Choudhury Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 121/2017 [Tapan Deb Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C)122/2017 [Nepal Debnath Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 125/2017 [Narayan Barman Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 126/2017 [Dipak Kr. Ghosh Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 127/2017 [Amar ch. Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 128/2017 [Gouranga Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 129/2017 [Falguna Hari Jamatia Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 130/2017 [Ajoy Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 131/2017 [Dilip Debnath Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 132/2017 [Badal Sutradhar Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 133/2017 [Sunil Ch. Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 134/2017 [Kshirode Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 135/2017 [Md Mangal Miah Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 136/2017 [Dilip Kr. Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 137/2017 [Anath Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 138/2017 [Kamal Majumder Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 139/2017 [Niranjan Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 140/2017 [Soumendra Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 143/2017 [Nani Gopal Saha Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 144/2017 [Md Amir Hussion Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 145/2017 [Sankar Ch. Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 146/2017 [Anu Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 147/2017 [Swapan Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 153/2017 [Rathindra Nath Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 154/2017 [Sukhen Ch. Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 155/2017 [Biswajit Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 157/2017 [Amar Singha Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 158/2017 [Chandan Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 159/2017 [Chiranjib Bhattacharji Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 160/2017 [Uttam Bhowmik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 161/2017 [Pradip Kr. Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 163/2017 [Arabinda Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 158/2017 [Chandan Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 159/2017 [Chiranjib Bhattacharji Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 160/2017 [Uttam Bhowmik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 161/2017 [Pradip Kr. Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 163/2017 [Arabinda Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 164/2017 [Khokan Ch. Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 165/2017 [Pradip Kr. Saha Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 166/2017 [Krishnalal Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) 167/2017 [Pradip Kr. Deb Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.] and WP(C) 175/2017 [Ranjan Bhattacharji Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as all these writ petitions forming part of this batch are set up on identical set of facts and question of law. 3. The writ petitioners herein were initially appointed as the Heavy Vehicle Drivers on fixed pay basis in the year 1999-2000. They were subsequently brought under the regular establishment as the Heavy Vehicle Driver by the order under No. F.1(100)-TRTC/(ESTT)/OFFER.99/VOL-II/329 dated 01.06.2007. For purpose of reference, the text of the order, except the names of the Heavy Vehicle Drivers, is reproduced hereunder: “TRIPURA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (A GOVT. OF TRIPURA UNDERTAKING) AGARTALA: TRIPURA. No.F.1(100)-TRTC/ESTT/Offer/99/Vol-II/329 Dated:- 01.6.2007. ORDER In pursuance of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of this Corporation in its 122nd meeting held on 05.9.2006 and approval accorded by the Transport Department, Govt. of Tripura vide No.F.6(15)-TRANS/98 dated 01.6.2007 with reference to the concurrence from the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura vide U.O. No. 295/FIN(G)/07 dated 25.5.2007, the following 42 (forty two) Fixed Pay Drivers are hereby allowed regular pay scale in the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver in the scale of Rs.3300-100-4800-110-5900-120-7100/- plus other allowances as admissible to the employees of this corporation from time to time with effect from 1st April, 2007. All terms & conditions of the offer of appointment shall remain unchanged. The Heavy Vehicle Drivers concerned should continue to perform duties in the same place of their posting. Their pay & allowances should be drawn under Head-Pay & allowances.” 4. From a reading of the order dated 01.06.2007 what appears is that the Heavy Vehicle Drivers, the petitioners whose names are appearing in the said order were allowed regular pay scale of Rs.3300-7100 in the post of Heavy Vehicle Drivers. Their pay & allowances should be drawn under Head-Pay & allowances.” 4. From a reading of the order dated 01.06.2007 what appears is that the Heavy Vehicle Drivers, the petitioners whose names are appearing in the said order were allowed regular pay scale of Rs.3300-7100 in the post of Heavy Vehicle Drivers. This is the genesis of the grievance of the writ petitioners of this batch of writ petitions. According to them, Heavy Vehicle Driver Grade-II is the promotion post of the Drivers and carries the higher pay scale of Rs.4000-7890. Thus, giving them the regular scale of pay of Rs.3300-7100 was a serious deprivation from their real wages. 5. It has been contended by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners made several representations for correcting that grave mistake committed by the respondent-Corporation but that was never corrected till 27.12.2010 when by publishing memorandum under No.F.1(39)-TRTC/ESTT/08/S/ROP/HVD/2010/1070, the Managing Director of Tripura Road Transport Corporation has granted the scale of pay of Rs.4000-7890 to the Heavy Vehicle Drivers w.e.f. 01.12.2010 and also stated further that no arrear of pay and allowances will be given to the Heavy Vehicle Drivers of the said Corporation. 6. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions has challenged the prospective operation of the said memorandum by claiming that they are entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs.4000-7890 from the date of their appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that earlier to the regularization of the petitioners, they were the fixed pay Heavy Vehicle Drivers and they were never brought under the regular establishment. Only by means of this order dated 01.06.2007 the petitioners were brought under the regular establishment by granting them the regular scale of pay w.e.f. 01.04.2007. In this regard, there is no controversy. 8. The State respondents have also by filing counter affidavit contended that prior to 01.04.2007 the petitioners cannot get the higher pay scale of Rs.4000-7890 or the subsequent revised pay scale based thereon. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has however vehemently argued that even if they are not entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.4000-7890 from the date of their fixed pay employment but in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has however vehemently argued that even if they are not entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.4000-7890 from the date of their fixed pay employment but in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 they are at least entitled to get the fixed pay at the minimum in the said pay scale in the fixed scale that was given to them. 10. This Court is unable to accept that contention as in the entire writ petition there is no attempt to show the disparity or the parity of the employment with the regular Heavy Vehicle Drivers. That is the essential element that must be pleaded and proved to claim such benefit in terms of Jagjit singh (supra). 11. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel as well as the records produced by the petitioners and the respondents this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.4000-7890 from 01.04.2007 as the Heavy Vehicle Drivers working under the TRTC. Denial of that pay scale by the memorandum dated 27.12.2010 is wholly untenable. Accordingly, the said memorandum is set aside and quashed to that extent of its effect. 12. This case, to a larger extent, is covered by the previous decision of this Court in [Dipak Das & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura and Ors., judgment dated 04.12.2015 delivered in WP(C) 452/2012]. In that judgment, this Court has observed 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.” 13. Having regard to the previous decision as well as the decision of the TRTC as reflected in memorandum dated 27.10.2012, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to the scale pay of Rs.4000-7890 w.e.f. 01.04.2007. The petitioners shall be paid their arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 01.04.2007 to 30.11.2010. Such payment shall be made by the respondent-Corporation within six months from today. 14. However, if in any case, any of the petitioners has retired from the service their last pay shall be determined in the same manner for the purpose of releasing the revised retiral benefits in terms of this order. 15. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. P Dutta, learned counsel for the Corporation-respondent. 16. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.