JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General appears for the respondent No. 4. No one appears for the respondent No. 3, even though notice was deemed to be served upon the respondent No. 3, vide Order dated 03.05.2018 passed by this Court. 2. The petitioners’ herein are all Lecturers (Selection Grade), working in different Government Colleges in Mizoram. They claim the benefit of fixation of their pay at the minimum of Rs. 14,940/-, in the scale of Pay of Rs.12000-18300/-per month, on completion of 5 years as Lecturer (Selection Grade), as was done in the case of those Lecturers (Selection Grade), who were senior to them, though the petitioners were not covered by the revised Career Advancement Scheme, which was made effective from 27.07.1998, vide the letter dated 27.07.1998. That the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, vide letter No. F.1-22/97-U.I dated 06.11.1998 made certain modifications in the Scheme as provided in the earlier letter dated 27/07/1998. As per the said letter dated 06.11.1998, it was provided under Clause 1(i) that the revised scales mentioned in Annexure-1 of the letter dated 27.07.1998 shall be effective from 01.01.1996 and that fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3700-125-4950-150-5700/-who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers as on 01.01.1996, will be made in the manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14,940/-in the revised scale of Rs. 12,000/--420-18300/-as and when they complete five years in the grade by allowing them to enjoy the benefit of two years advance increments. The petitioners thus pray for modification/ setting aside the impugned letters dated 27.07.1998 and 06.11.1998 issued by respondent No. 2. 3. The Mizoram College Teachers’ Association, in which the petitioners were members, had initially filed WP(C) No. 37/2009 challenging the Notification dated 05.03.2009, wherein the Governor of Mizoram was pleased to order that the pay of those Lecturers (Selection Grade) who were not in the Grade as on 01.01.1996, but already enjoyed the said benefit shall be refixed as per their entitlement and the amount of benefits due to the wrong stepping up of pay of Rs. 14,940/-already drawn, if any, shall either be refunded in lump-sum or adjusted from their salary. 4. The petitioners’ case in WP(C) No. 37/2009 was that they had been promoted as Lecturers (Selection Grade) after completion of 16 years of service as Lecturers. They had been promoted after 01.01.1996 and before 27.07.1998. The grievance of the petitioner Association was that though the members of the petitioner Association had been given two increments of pay on completion of 5 years of service as Selection Grade, the said benefit had been withdrawn and recovery made for the two increments given to them, even though Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had been promoted as Lecturers (Selection Grade) on or before 01.01.1996, who were being given the benefit of two increments of pay after completing 5 years of service as Lecturers (Selection Grade), continued to enjoy the said benefit. 5. This Court disposed of WP(C) No. 37/2009, vide Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2009, by setting aside the impugned Notification dated 05.03.2009. 6. The State of Mizoram, being aggrieved by the Order dated 30.10.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 37/2009, filed writ appeal, i.e. WA No. 3/2010. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of WA No. 3/2010 vide Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2010, by holding that the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the petition and also not justified in holding that the Notification dated 06.11.1998 would apply to the Lecturers (Selection Grade) who were put in the said Grade after 01.01.1996. The appeal was allowed by setting aside any interim order or final order granted in favour of the original petitioners and which, restrained the State Government from making recovery. The operative portion of the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2010 passed in WA No. 3/2010 is reproduced below:- “22. The submission that the petitioners be allowed to challenge the validity of the notification dated 06.11.1998 in this proceeding, cannot be accepted because the petitioners came to the court placing very strong reliance upon the notification dated 06.11.1998. At the appellate stage, they cannot be allowed to take a sommersault and take a stand which they never projected before the learned Single Judge. 23. If the law permits the petitioners to challenge the validity of the notification dated 06.11.1998, then nothing would stop them from challenging the validity of the said notification before the appropriate court in appropriate proceedings. 24. 23. If the law permits the petitioners to challenge the validity of the notification dated 06.11.1998, then nothing would stop them from challenging the validity of the said notification before the appropriate court in appropriate proceedings. 24. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the petition and was also not justified in holding that the notification dated 06.11.1998 would apply to the Lecturers (Selection Grade) who are put in the grade after 01.01.1996. 25. The appeal deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and quashed. 26. Any interim order or final order granted in favour of the original petitioners restraining the State Government from making recovery or asking them not to make adjustment is hereby set aside. The State would be free to proceed in accordance with the notification dated 05.03.2009. 27. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. Subsequent to the above events, the present petitioners, who are members of the petitioner Association in WP(C) No. 37/2009 filed WP(C) No. 82/2011, praying for setting aside the letters dated 27.07.1998 and 06.11.1998 issued by the respondent No. 2, as the said letters effected the revision of pay scales of the petitioners. 8. WP(C) No. 82/2011 was disposed of by this Court, vide Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2015, by directing the petitioners to submit a representation alongwith a copy of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 82/2011 before the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The representation was to be disposed of by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were also directed to communicate the decision taken to the petitioners representation. 9. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners had submitted representation dated 25.08.2015 to the respondent No. 1 and 2. However, no communication has been made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the petitioners, with regard to whether the petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2015 has been considered. The petitioners’ counsel thus prays that a fresh direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to take a decision on the petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2015. 10. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the petitioners, with regard to whether the petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2015 has been considered. The petitioners’ counsel thus prays that a fresh direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to take a decision on the petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2015. 10. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 has submitted letter No. F.No. 19-6/2018-IS-16 dated 17.08.2018 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, which states that the present writ petition does not pertain to the Department of School Education & Literacy and that it pertains to the Department of Higher Education & University Grants Commission. Therefore, the issue raised in this writ petition should be forwarded to U-11 Section of Department of Higher Education for further necessary action. The learned CGC has also submitted letter dated 09.08.2018, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, which shows that a copy of the writ petition has been sent to the U.I Section for further necessary action. 11. The learned CGC accordingly submits that the representation dated 25.08.2015, which had been submitted by the petitioners in compliance with the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2015 passed in compliance with WP(C) No. 82/2011, will have to be decided by the respondent No. 5. 12. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the State Government does not have any role to play in this case, as they are only the implementing agency. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 14. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were to decide the petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2015, in compliance with the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 82/2011. However, no decision has been made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 till date. The submission made by the learned CGC alongwith the letters dated 17.08.2018 and 09.08.2018, shows that the respondent No. 5 is the concerned/appropriate Department, who can take a decision on the petitioners’ representation. 15. The operative portion of the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 82/2011, which is at paragraph 24, is reproduced below:- “24. The submission made by the learned CGC alongwith the letters dated 17.08.2018 and 09.08.2018, shows that the respondent No. 5 is the concerned/appropriate Department, who can take a decision on the petitioners’ representation. 15. The operative portion of the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 82/2011, which is at paragraph 24, is reproduced below:- “24. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit representation along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent No. 1 and 2. Such representation shall be submitted within a period of 2(two) weeks from today. The respondent No. 1 and 2, shall examine and dispose the same with a speaking order within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation and the same shall be intimated to the petitioners. While considering the representation of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 and 2 shall also take into consideration the judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1394, 1881, 1925 and 2067 of 2008 which is annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure-7. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court, if further aggrieved by the action of the respondents.” 16. The contents of the letter dated 17.08.2018 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy is reproduced below:- “Subject: WP(C) No. 109 of 2017 filed by Shri S.K. Prasad & Ors. against Union of India & Ors before Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench. Madam, Please refer to this Ministry letter of even no. dated 01.08.2018 on the above mentioned subject. In this regard, it is to inform you that WP(C) No. 109 of 2017 filed by Shri S.K. Prasad does not pertain to Department of School Education & Literacy. It pertains to Department of Higher Education & University Grant Commission. Therefore, the said writ petition has been forwarded to U-11 section of Department of Higher Education for further necessary action (copy enclosed). It is requested that any queries/clarification, if required in respect of the above mentioned case you may contact to Ms. Renuka Mishra, Director, Ph-011-23388632, Email-renuka.mishra@nic.in, and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Narayan, Under Secretary, Ph-011-23381460, Email-sknarayan.edu@nic.in.” 17. Therefore, the said writ petition has been forwarded to U-11 section of Department of Higher Education for further necessary action (copy enclosed). It is requested that any queries/clarification, if required in respect of the above mentioned case you may contact to Ms. Renuka Mishra, Director, Ph-011-23388632, Email-renuka.mishra@nic.in, and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Narayan, Under Secretary, Ph-011-23381460, Email-sknarayan.edu@nic.in.” 17. In view of the facts and reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2015 should be decided, not only by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but also by the respondent No. 5. However, as the respondent No. 5 was not a party in WP(C) No. 82/2011, a direction would have to be given in this writ petition to the respondent No. 5 to decide the petitioners representation, with regard to their grievance(s). Accordingly, the petitioners are given the liberty to file a fresh representation, in line with their earlier representation dated 25.08.2015, to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, within a period of three weeks from today. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 shall thereafter take a decision on the petitioners’ representation within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of the representation, which shall be accompanied by a copy of the writ petition and a certified copy of this order. 18. The decision taken by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 shall thereafter be communicated to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 19. The letters dated 17.08.2018 and 09.08.2018 are made a part of the record and marked as annexures ‘X’ and ‘Y’ respectively. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.