JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has submitted that in the common judgment and order dated 20.02.2017 delivered in WP(C) No.729 of 2016 it has been erroneously observed that the writ petitioners would be entitled to the scale of Rs.2000-4,410/- [the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/-] and its corresponding revised or modified scale by way of movement if the petitioners continued in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on completion of seventeen years of service without any promotion. For purpose of elucidation, the referred part of the judgment which appears at Page 101 in the said judgment is extracted hereunder : “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 Career Advancement Scheme (modified) with effect from 01.01.1999 under Section 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999.” 3. According to Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, the pay scale mentioned as Rs.2000-4410/- on completion of seventeen years of continuous service without promotion in the grade of Sub-Inspector of Police has not been correctly reflected and for that purpose, she has referred to the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 where it appears that pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7,450-13,000 is Rs.2,100-4,530/-. Therefore, any pay scale below Rs.2,100-4,530/- is granted that will bring effect of reduction of pay. That apart, it is admitted position that the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/- was revised to Rs.2,100-4,530/-. It is an error apparent on the face of the records. Moreover, Ms. 7,450-13,000 is Rs.2,100-4,530/-. Therefore, any pay scale below Rs.2,100-4,530/- is granted that will bring effect of reduction of pay. That apart, it is admitted position that the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/- was revised to Rs.2,100-4,530/-. It is an error apparent on the face of the records. Moreover, Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel has referred to the judgment and order dated 28.05.2015 [Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha versus the State of Tripura & Others] which had been referred in the writ petition being WP(C) No. 729 of 2016, from which this review proceeding has emerged. A relevant part of that judgment [Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha versus the State of Tripura & Others] is reproduced below for reference: “18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/- w.e.f. 02.12.1987 and he was also entitled to the pay scale of Rs.7,450-13,000/- w.e.f. 02.12.1997 and further graded scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/- w.e.f. 02.12.2004. The respondents are directed to provide the benefits to the petitioner within 3(three) months from today.” 4. Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel has further submitted that by the office order dated 24.03.2017 [Annexure-B to the Review Petition No.38 of 2017], the government has implemented the said judgment in Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha (supra) as the SLP filed by them in the apex court has been dismissed in the threshold. That apart, the SLP filed by the state respondent against the judgment dated 10.01.2006 as extensively relied in the judgment dated 20.02.2017 has also been dismissed by the apex court. In view of that, Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel has submitted that the pay scale for the next movement after 7(seven) years of service in the scale of pay of Rs.2,100-4,530/- shall be Rs.3000-5000/- and its corresponding pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/-. In Ajit Kumar Sinha (supra) those scales were approved and when the SLP was dismissed, the state admittedly implemented the said judgment which is squarely on the same issue and the same post and the pay scale. Ms. Debgupta, learned counsel has further submitted that the said aspect was raised in the writ petition, but could not appropriately be highlighted. There cannot be distinction between the same class of the Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence, it would be appropriate for this court to invoke the review jurisdiction for substantive justice. 5. From the other side, Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. and Mr. There cannot be distinction between the same class of the Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence, it would be appropriate for this court to invoke the review jurisdiction for substantive justice. 5. From the other side, Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents have not challenged the fact of granting the revised scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/- in terms of the said judgment in [Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha versus the State of Tripura & Others] for movement after 7(seven) years of service without promotion in the scale of pay of Rs.7,450-13,000/-. But both Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. have raised one question that this observation would go against the provisions of Rule 10 of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 which provides that the movement to the next scale would be accordingly to the pay scale provided in Annexure-A to the said rules, 1999. 6. In reply, Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel has submitted that this point was raised and argued by the respondents in Ajit Kumar Sinha (supra) but that was clearly discarded by this court. That judgment has been affirmed by the apex court by dismissing the SLP preferred by the respondents. The respondents cannot be allowed to reopen that aspect which has been dwelled upon and determined. Thus, those are in the grade of Sub-Inspector have completed seven years of continuous service without any promotion in the scale of pay of Rs.7,450-13,000/- would be entitled to movement to the revised pay scale of pay of Rs.10,000-15,100/- in terms of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 as the advancement of scale. 7. Having regard to all these aspects as aforementioned, this court is persuaded to reframe the paragraph as reproduced hereinabove. 7. Having regard to all these aspects as aforementioned, this court is persuaded to reframe the paragraph as reproduced hereinabove. The said paragraph shall be as follows : “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 to the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/- or its corresponding scale of pay of Rs.7450-13000/- under the ROP Rules, 1999 [see the judgment dated 10.01.2006] and the petitioners would be entitled to further advancement in due course on completion of 7(seven) years of continuous service in the grade of Sub-Inspector and in the scale of pay of Rs.7,450-13,000/- to the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/- (pre-revised) and its corresponding revised scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/- as rendered by the judgment dated 28.05.2015 delivered in WP(C) No. 259 of 2006[Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha versus The State of Tripura & Others].” 8. The Registry shall substitute by deleting the part as reproduced hereinabove on incorporating the reframed part. As a measure of abundant caution, this order is made part of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2017 which is under review. Further, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to make a timeframe for payment of the arrears, if any, to the petitioner. The respondents are therefore directed that they shall make payment of arrear pay and allowances and pass consequential orders within a period of 6(six) months from the date when the petitioner shall place a copy of this order to the respondents. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed and disposed of. It is made further clear that this order shall apply in respect of all the writ petitioners whose writ petitions were disposed of by the said common judgment and order dated 20.02.2017. For purpose of reference, a catalogue of the writ petitions those were disposed by the said common judgment dated 20.02.2017 is enclosed with this order as Annexure-A. Copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties for doing the needful.