JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Special counsel appearing for the Department of Finance (E). Also heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 15. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the common Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 62/2016, WP(C) No.79/2016 and WP(C) No. 78/2016. By the said order, this Court had directed the State respondents to apply the provisions of O.M. dated 23.03.1988 and O.M. dated 15.01.2010 for granting additional increments to the private respondents herein, on their attaining additional/fresh qualifications, which would be considered and granted w.e.f., the issuance of O.M. dated 15.01.2010. 3. The brief facts relating to the filing of writ appeal was that the private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein are working as Nurses and their services are under the Government of Mizoram, serving in different hospitals in the State. It was projected that in terms of Office Memorandum dated 23.03.1988, the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare had provided that any nursing staff who acquires higher educational qualification would be granted additional increment (Not absorbable) by further providing that persons acquiring Diploma in Nursing Education, Nursing Administration, Psychiatric Nursing, Pediatric Nursing and Public Health Nursing would be allowed one increment and Nurses acquiring the qualification of B.Sc with (Hons.) Nursing, B.Sc. Nursing/Post Basic/Post Certificate B.Sc. Nursing, Post Graduate Degree in Nursing i.e. Master in Nursing would be permitted two increments, both non- absorbable in terms of the said O.M. However, as these benefits were not granted, the private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 had approached this Court by filing the above referred three writ petitions and accordingly, the learned Single Judge of this Court had upheld the claims of the writ petitioners (private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein) and the Office Memorandum dated 30.04.2004 by virtue of which the appellant had stopped payment of incentive to Government employees who had acquire higher/fresh qualification by taking study leave/sponsored by the Government w.e.f., 01.04.2004, was set aside. 4. 1 to 12 herein) and the Office Memorandum dated 30.04.2004 by virtue of which the appellant had stopped payment of incentive to Government employees who had acquire higher/fresh qualification by taking study leave/sponsored by the Government w.e.f., 01.04.2004, was set aside. 4. With the aforesaid factual background, the case projected by the learned Special counsel for the Finance Department is that a few similarly situated Nurses were granted increments in terms of the O.M. dated 23.03.1988 vide Office Order No. 621/97 of December 1997 bearing No. A.27020/1/94-DHSN, but the same was done on an administrative mistake committed by the Director of Health Services and therefore, the Finance Department (PRU), on coming to know about the said mistake, by Notification No. A.26019/1/99-FIN(PRU) dated 30.04.2004 had clarified that the payment of incentive to Government employees acquiring higher/fresh qualification by taking study leave or sponsored by the Government should be stopped w.e.f., 01.04.2004. Accordingly, it is projected that the Office Memorandum dated 23.03.1988 was never adopted by the State Government and therefore, no benefits can be accorded to the private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 on the strength of the said Notification dated 23.03.1988. In order to canvass that it was within the competence of the State Government to alter their position by withdrawing benefits which was granted on a mistake of fact, the learned Special counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 (Para No. 32) and the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr Vs Ajit Kumar Kar & Ors, (2008) 11 SCC 591 (Para No. 46). 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the profoma respondent Nos. 13, 14 & 15, it is seen that from the materials available on record that this Court by virtue of Order dated 22.09.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 125/2013 has already set aside and quashed the O.M. No. A.26019/1/99-FIN(ERU) dated 30.04.2004. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 22.09.2014 has not attained finality. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 22.09.2014 has not attained finality. It is also seen that by virtue of Judgment & Order dated 21.09.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 100/2014 (S), this Court had further directed the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein for grant of additional increments as those writ petitioners had attained their qualification as per Office Memorandum dated 23.03.1988, which was continued vide Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2010. Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2010 appears to have been sustained and the said Judgment in WP(C) No. 100/2014 (S) has also attained finality. 6. It is further seen that as the O.M. dated 30.04.2004 has already been set aside and quashed by Judgment & Order dated 22.09.2014 in WP(C) No. 125/2014, there is no apparent reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2016 in the three writ petitions, which are under challenge because by said order this Court had granted reliefs to the private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 in terms of the Judgment & Order dated 21.09.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 100/2014 (S). 7. This leads to only one remaining issue raised by the learned Special counsel for the appellant to be answered as to whether the reliefs granted to the similarly situated Nurses of paying increments was on the basis of a mistake and in this regard, the case is of Narendra Singh (supra) and Ajit Kumar Kar (supra) were relied. In this regard, no materials have been placed before this Court to show that the State had taken a stand in any of the Notifications or O.M.'s on record that the increments granted to the similarly situated Nurses by granting increments vide the Office Order of December 1997 was by way of mistake. It is further seen that in the aforesaid Office Order of December 1997 under No. A.27020/1/94-DHSN, it is mentioned therein that the said Office Order was issued on the basis of approval conveyed by the Government of Mizoram under Memorandum No. B.12012/1/88-HFW/Pt. dated 02.12.1997. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the plea taken by the learned Special counsel for the appellant that there was a mistake committed by the State Government because according to the opinion of this Court, there cannot be a presumption of mistake by the State. dated 02.12.1997. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the plea taken by the learned Special counsel for the appellant that there was a mistake committed by the State Government because according to the opinion of this Court, there cannot be a presumption of mistake by the State. Moreover, it is seen that the Nurses were already granted increments have been permitted to continue the said benefits and therefore, under the principle of parity, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned herein because it would lead to discrimination between the private respondent Nos. 1 to 12 vis-a-vis other Nurses who have already been granted increments, who are otherwise similarly situated. This answers the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, in view of the discussions above, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred two cases does not appear to apply under the facts of the present case in hand. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 62/2016, WP(C) No. 79/2016 & WP(C) No. 78/2016. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.