JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have urged this court for directing the respondents to provide them the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and also urged to quash the communication dated 30.05.2014, in Annexure-P/16 Colly. to the writ petition. 3. The facts in this writ petition are mostly admitted. Both the petitioners were appointed in the post of Observer/Recorder under the Department of Science, Technology & Environment [the DSTE in short]. When they were inducted in the service, their pay scale was Rs.970-2400/-. In the report of Fourth Tripura Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- was recommended for the post of Observer/Recorder in the DSTE. But the Government of Tripura did not accept that recommendation while promulgating the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, hereafter referred to as the ROP Rules, 1999. The pay scale that had been accepted by the Government was Rs.3200-6030/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioners made the representations but without any avail. The ROP Rules, 1999 had undergone several amendments including the amendment carried out by 15th Amendment Rules, 2004. In the 15th Amendment Rules, which was published in the gazette of Tripura on 17.11.2004, under the Information Cultural Affairs & Tourism Department [the ICAT in short], the following entry had been made: Department/Page No. & Sl. No. Name of Post Prefix/Suffix to the Post Existing Scale Revised Scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 Name of Post Modified Revised Scale of Pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 Remarks Page: 67, Sl.34 (New) Observer/Recorder (Not included in TSCS (RP) Rules, 1999 970-2400 3200-6030 (Corresponding revised scale) Observer/Recorder 3300-7100 Even the competent authority of the DSTE had thought at that point of time that the said scale was for the Observer/Recorder working under the DSTE to bring parity of the pay scale. One Scientific Officer of the DSTE wrote a letter on 28.09.2005 to the Director, ICAT Department to forward the recruitment rules of the Observer/Recorder of the ICAT Department for removing certain anomaly in the pay scale of the Observer/Recorder of the DSTE. In reply to the letter dated 28.09.2005, the Director, ICAT had informed the Senior Scientific Officer, DSTE by his letter dated 17.10.2006 that no post of Observer/Recorder existed in the department of ICAT. 4. In reply to the letter dated 28.09.2005, the Director, ICAT had informed the Senior Scientific Officer, DSTE by his letter dated 17.10.2006 that no post of Observer/Recorder existed in the department of ICAT. 4. Having confronted with such circumstances, the petitioner No.1, namely Bikash Ch. Datta submitted a representation on 03.08.2011 asserting that the Finance Department had published 15th Amendment [of the ROP Rules, 1999] in 2004 for upgrading the pay scale of Observer/Recorder to Rs.3300-7100 from Rs.3200-6030/-. Similar upgradation was not indicated for the post of Observer/Recorder under the DSTE, but incidentally the Director of ICAT has confirmed that in that department there was no such post of Observer/Recorder. Further, the petitioner No.1 had admittedly referred as under: “It is also gathered that the F.D has informed the DSTE to refer the matter to the next pay commission when set-up. As Govt. set-up a pay review committee instated of Pay Commission, the matter was referred to the pay review committee for rectification of the error. But the pay review committee also did not take the issue into account examining the back ground of the case and the F.D. also published the ROP Rules, 1999 showing the pay band scale of O/R as Rs.5310-24000 (PB-2) Corresponding to pre revised pay scale of Rs.3200-6030 instated of Rs.3300-7100/-.” Thus, the petitioners had urged for removing the said anomaly by allowing them to get the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Those representations are available with this writ petition. As the representations do contain the similar substance, no specific reference is required to be made. Similar representation was, as submitted by Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, also made by the petitioner No.2. Finally, by the communication dated 30.05.2014, in Annexure-P/16 Colly. to the writ petition, the petitioner No.1 was informed as under: “With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that the Finance Department, Government of Tripura has advice to the Department to refer the matter to the next State Commission when it will be formed vide U.O.No.28/Fin(PC)/14 dated 27/05/2014 (Copy enclosed).” Being aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that though the post of Lower Division Clerk [the LDC in short] has been clubbed in the same category i.e. Group-C and when all other posts in the same category are getting the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-, only in the post of Observer/Recorder, the lower pay scale of Rs.3200-6030/- was given. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has further contended that the respondents did realise that injustice had been done in respect of the post of Observer/Recorder. Only in that context, the respondents by filing the reply have stated as follows: “Moreover, the answering respondent decided to place the issue to the next Pay Commission as such, it is crystal clear that the answering respondents are sympathetic about the petitioner’s grievance and as such, there is no basis in the instant petition filed by the petitioners.” 6. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that from the 15th Amendment Rules, 2004 what emerges clearly is that the object of the said amendment was to give the modified pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-. But for unintelligible reason, the said pay scale was accommodated in a new entry under the ICAT Department where no such post was available. Unfortunately, as it may, the respondents without admitting such mistake had been defending the action. 7. From the other side, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the pay structure for the post of Observer/Recorder is entirely different. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has further submitted that in the ROP Rules, 1999 the pay scale was specified for the post of Observer/Recorder and the pay scale was revised from Rs.970-2400/- to Rs.3200-6030/- and as such, there could not be any consideration for not including the revised pay scale against the post. 8. From a bare reading of the new entry made by way of 15th Amendment Rules, 2004 it would be apparent that the Observer/Recorder for which the modified pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- was provided for those posts did not have any pay scale in the ROP Rules, 1999. Moreover, it has been clearly mentioned that that post was supposed to be under the ICAT Department. Thus, the petitioners have failed to provide any basis on which the relief as prayed in the writ petition can be allowed. That apart, Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. Moreover, it has been clearly mentioned that that post was supposed to be under the ICAT Department. Thus, the petitioners have failed to provide any basis on which the relief as prayed in the writ petition can be allowed. That apart, Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners have already received the benefit under the Assured Career Progression [ACP in short] Scheme for completing their 25 years of continuous service without any promotion. As a result, their pay has been fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- [Pay Band-2]. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A has contended further that since apparently the respondents were of the view that in providing the revised pay scale, there appeared some anomalies in respect of the pay scale of the petitioners, they had decided to refer the matter for consideration by the expert body in the perspective of the pay equalisation. The respondents referred the matter to the Pay Review Committee with the proposed scale of pay of Rs.3300-7100/-. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has referred to the formatted information filed by the respondents to the Pay Review Committee. The relevant proposal is available in column-17 of the said format. However, the Pay Review Committee did not, as stated take into consideration the said proposal. However, they had neither rejected the proposal nor accepted the same. In absence of any recommendation, no action was taken by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura to upgrade the pay scale of the petitioners. The only question that falls for consideration before this Court is that whether this court can direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-. 9. Having regard to the ROP (15th Amendment) Rules, 2004 or having regard to the doctrine of equalisation of pay, the court cannot direct the respondents to provide a particular pay scale to the post of Observer/Recorder in the DSTE but the court can fall short of recording that the respondents have admitted the existence of alimony for not providing the petitioners the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The Finance Department had the authority and power to accommodate the pay scale in favour of the petitioners. The Finance Department had the authority and power to accommodate the pay scale in favour of the petitioners. What has surfaced from the records is that the Finance Department had pushed the matter once to the Pay Review Committee and thereafter by the impugned communication assured the petitioners that they would send the matter for consideration of the next Pay Commission which was never constituted. The reference is therefore due. It is also on record that the Pay Review Committee did not consider the proposal sent by the department nor the new Pay commission has been set up. As a result, the petitioners’ grievance remained un-remedied. In view that, the Finance Department, Government of Tripura is directed to consider whether the post of Observer/Recorder under the DSTE ought to have been borne in the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- and decide within 3(three) months from the day when the petitioners shall submit a copy of this order. If decided in the positive, the petitioners shall be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- with the corresponding revision and the movement under the CAS and the ACP based on the pay scale of Rs.3100-7100/-. Apparent it is on the basis of the records that the DSTE had given justification why they had proposed the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-. Even in the reply the respondents have admitted, though not directly, that the respondents have the sympathy for the petitioners so far it concerns with the grant of pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in consideration, the Finance Department take the decision. The arrears of pay and allowances, if decided favourably, shall be released within a period of 6(six) months from the date of the decision. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.