JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, representing the State respondents. 2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the decision of the respondent authorities pertains to Arrear Salary for the period w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 and the decision in fixing the Pay Scale notionally from the stage of 5th CPC w.e.f 01.04.1998 without Arrear Salary as illegal and prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for payment of Arrear Salary of Primary/Elementary Teachers serving under the Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh w.e.f 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013, as per the 5th Central Pay Commission. 3. In view of the facts and relief sought for in the two writ petitions being identical, both were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. The WP(C) No. 151/2018 has been filed by the petitioners, 6(six) in numbers, who are serving as Primary/Elementary Teachers in the Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. WP(C) 466/2022 has been filed by the All Arunachal Pradesh Elementary Teachers Associations (AAPETA) represented by its Vice President on behalf of all the members of the petitioners Association. 5. The case projected by the writ petitioners, shorn of unnecessary details, is with regard to non-payment of arrear salary of Primary/Elementary Teachers serving under the Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, w.e.f 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013, as per recommendation made by the 5th & 6th central pay commission (hereinafter referred to as CPC in short). The basic contention made is that as per the recommendation of 5th and 6th CPC they are entitled to receive Arrear salary for the period w.e.f 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013. 6. Earlier, some of the petitioners approached this court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No.21/2014, seeking the same relief as sought for in the present writ petitions. It was also contended in the said writ petition that while adopting both the CPC by the State Cabinet, the Govt. did not take any further decision that due to financial constrains no any financial benefits accrued under the said CPC would be paid to any teachers working in various schools in the State except the notional fixation benefits w.e.f 01.04.2013. did not take any further decision that due to financial constrains no any financial benefits accrued under the said CPC would be paid to any teachers working in various schools in the State except the notional fixation benefits w.e.f 01.04.2013. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed by an order dated 25.05.2014 and remanded the matter back to the State Govt. for examination of the claim of the those petitioners with a further direction for passing a Speaking Order. The Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh rejected the claim of the petitioners vide Order dated 04.10.2014 holding that those petitioners are not entitled to the arrear salary for the aforesaid period except the benefits of notional fixation of Pay Scale on consideration of extreme financial constraint. 7. Being aggrieved, WP(C) No.463/2014 was filed which was dismissed on withdrawal with a liberty to file a fresh. Hence, these present Writ Petitions. 8. By filing the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent authorities took a stand that in terms of the decision taken by the Govt. vide Order dated 15.02.2013, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any Arrear Salary for the period w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 except the benefit of notional fixation of Revised Pay Scale due to extreme financial constraint faced by the Govt. The respondents also took a stand that in terms of the negotiation arrived at between the Education Department and Arunachal Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as ATA), the petitioners are not entitled to any Arrear Salary. It appears from the said Affidavit that the respondents admitted the fact that the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh or the Cabinet did never modify or alter or amend the recommendation made by 5th and 6th CPC to any considerable extent but that that does not mean that the State Govt. has waived its authority to effect discretionary alteration, changes etc. 9. The petitioners contended that the State cannot deprived the citizens of their legitimate dues accrued under ROP Rules on the plea of financial constraint and once the said benefit of Arrear Salary accrued under 5th and 6th CPC was extended to many other Govt. employees working in various other Departments, same cannot be denied to the petitioners on the plea of financial crisis or on the plea that the Arunachal Teachers Association waived or relinquished the claim of the petitioners for Arrear Salary. 10. employees working in various other Departments, same cannot be denied to the petitioners on the plea of financial crisis or on the plea that the Arunachal Teachers Association waived or relinquished the claim of the petitioners for Arrear Salary. 10. The petitioners contended that vide Notification dated 15.02.2013 the respondent authorities granted the notional benefit of revised Pay Scale accrued under 5th and 6th CPC w.e.f 01.04.2013 without actual financial benefit. That apart, the respondent authorities took a stand in their affidavit-in-opposition that the claim of the petitioners for Arrear Salary w.e.f 01.04.1998 is barred by limitation and consequently they are not entitled to claim Arrear Salary for any period beyond three years from the date of claiming the Arrear Salary. But both the aforesaid stands of the respondent authorities, it is contended by the petitioners, are not acceptable in law in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India -Vs- Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 as well as this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors -Vs-C.Chandra Kumar reported in 2021 (5) GLT 193. 11. The petitioners contended that since the right to receive salary both current and arrear is a substantive right apart from being a fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 vis-a vis a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, cannot be said to have been waived by the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Case of Olga Tellis and Ors -VS- Bombay Municipal Cooperation's and Ors, reported in AIR 1980 SC 180. It is also contended that grant of arrears or current salary to any Govt. employees does not depend upon the wisdom or administrative pleasure or discretion of the State. 12. The petitioners' contended that since the Govt. did not take any Cabinet decision either to withdraw or cancel or modify the recommendation of 5th and 6th CPC, the respondent authorities cannot deny the said Arrear Salary by exercising any administrative discretion or wisdom or pleasure. That apart, once the recommendations made under 5th and 6th CPC, were adopted and fully accepted by the Govt. did not take any Cabinet decision either to withdraw or cancel or modify the recommendation of 5th and 6th CPC, the respondent authorities cannot deny the said Arrear Salary by exercising any administrative discretion or wisdom or pleasure. That apart, once the recommendations made under 5th and 6th CPC, were adopted and fully accepted by the Govt. by taking Cabinet decision, the respondent authorities would be estopped by Doctrine of Estoppel and cannot take the plea that once the claim of the petitioners and other teachers for Arrear Salary was waived or relinquished by ATA, there is no question of claiming the said Arrear Salary again. 13. On 28.07.2022, Department filed joint Affidavit stating that the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, on consideration, found the claim of the petitioners and others to be genuine and appropriate. The respondent authorities admitted the claim of the petitioners and they do not have any objection if any relief is granted to the petitioners. On the submission of learned Standing Counsel for Education Department to the effect that in terms of the decision of the Govt., the writ petition may be disposed of, this Court has directed the Standing Counsel for Education Department, to place on record on the next date regarding the decision of the Department as to whether the department admitted the claim of the petitioners and others. 14. On 16.05.2023 a short affidavit was filed and once again admitted the claim of the petitioners for Arrear salary for the period w.e.f 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 and further apprised that respondent authorities have by filing their Affidavit had already admitted the claim of the petitioners and others in implementation of the decision of the Govt. 15. Thereafter, the respondent authorities despite the earlier two Affidavits dated 18.10.2022 and 16.05.2023, filed a fresh Affidavit in 13.09.2023 and took a complete turn from the earlier stand and admission made thereon and further disputed the claim of the petitioners on the allegation that the Director of Elementary Education, Respondent No.6 in collusion with other Officials of the Department filed a false Affidavit before this Court without any knowledge of the Respondent No.4. A serious allegation is levelled against the Respondent No.6 and one Shri Bamar Yinyo, the Nodal Officer(Law) Education Department and states that the admission made in two Additional Affidavit dated 18.10.2022 and 16.05.2023 is based on misrepresentation and without any prior approval of the Respondent No.4 and therefore, the said Affidavits dated 18.10.2022 and 16.05.2023 cannot be treated to be the Affidavit filed by the Education Department nor can the stand taken in those Affidavits be treated to be stand of the Education Department and hence the petitioners are not entitled to any Arrear Salary. 16. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the respondent No.4 filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition without obtaining any prior leave/permission from the Court and without ascertaining the actual facts and that too by suppressing the materials fact in a deliberate manner, made a serious allegation against the Respondent No.6 and one Shri Bamar Yinyo, the Nodal Officer (Law) Education Department. It is contended that the respondent No.4 denied the justifiability of the claim of the petitioners and others on the plea of the policy decision on the ground that the Govt. has got prerogative to take the policy decision and refuse to pay the Arrear Salary as accrued under 5th and 6th CPC. The petitioners have submitted that the Education Department does not have any discretion or authority to withdraw the earlier two Affidavits and file any fresh Affidavit without the leave of the Court. It is contended that once the Affidavit is filed on Oath the said Affidavit cannot be withdrawn by filing any subsequent Affidavit taking a contrary stand and any such subsequent Affidavit would per se amount to withdrawal of the earlier Affidavit which is not permissible in law in view of the settled position of law as held by Apex Court in various judicial decisions. 17. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel, contended that it is incorrect that the respondent No.4 as well as the present Commissioner of Education Department do not have any knowledge regarding the aforesaid two Affidavits filed by respondent authorities on 18.10.2022 and 16.05.2023 and the relevant records would ipso-facto shows the apparent falsity or incorrectness of the said contentions made by the Respondent No.4. 18. Mr. 18. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel, submits that even assuming that the aforesaid two Affidavit dated 18.10.2022 and 16.05.2023 behind their back or in collusion of Director and Nodal Officer but the petitioners cannot either be blame for that nor can they be found at fault so as to allow the respondent authorities to withdraw their aforesaid two Affidavits dated 18.10.2022 and 16.05.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioners was clearly and expressly admitted by the respondent authorities, more so, when the withdrawal of the Affidavit by filing any subsequent Affidavit is not legally permissible in view of the settled position of law that Affidavit filed on Oath shall be deem to be an evidence and the evidence once adduced cannot be withdrawn for adducing any reverse evidence more particularly in respect of writ proceedings. 21. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel, submits that stand of the respondents cannot be legally sustainable in view of the fact that right to salary which includes Arrear Salary as accrued on account of acceptance of recommendation of 5th and 6th CPC by the Govt. without any alteration and modification, cannot be taken away by the Govt. for any reason whatsoever having due regard to the admitted settled position of law that right to receive Salary is not only a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 but is also a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India without any reasonable basis and the respondent authorities at different point of time took different causes in justification of decision not to pay the monetary benefits towards Arrear salary accrued under 5th and 6th CPC except notional fixation of Revised Pay Scale w.e.f 01.04.2013 and all of such causes or reason on the basis of which the respondent authorities denied the said Monetary benefits towards Arrear Salary on the basis of the impugned Order/ Notification dated 15.02.2013. Therefore, the stand of the respondents are not sustainable in law. 22. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel, in response to each and every stand taken by the respondent authorities submits that none of those stands are sustainable in law in view of various judicial decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the stand of the respondents are not sustainable in law. 22. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel, in response to each and every stand taken by the respondent authorities submits that none of those stands are sustainable in law in view of various judicial decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court. The plea of financial constraint, probable huge strain on public exchequer, relinquishment of the claim of the petitioners and others by ATA in terms of negotiation taken place between the Department authorities and the said ATA, non maintainability of the writ petition for want of entitlement as resorted to by the respondents are not at acceptable. On the plea that the claim of the petitioners and other for Arrear Salary is barred by limitation, he submits that once the denial of Arrear Salary, a substantive right, is held to be continuing wrong, causing a continuing injury, the question of limitation does not have any application, the right to claim Arrear Salary by duly appointed Govt. employee, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 23. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel, submits that once the recommendations made udder 5th and 6th CPC are adopted by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh by taking policy decision the benefits provided under the said CPC pertaining to Arrear Salary or any part thereof cannot be taken away or defeated or denied by the respondents as there is no any Cabinet decision and the plea of policy decision taken by the respondents does not have any substantive force whatsoever. In view of the aforesaid factual situation based on record, he submits that this Court may be pleased to allow the writ petitions by granting the relief as sought for by the petitioners. 24. In support of his submissions, Mr. A.K. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Union of India & Ors. Vs. C. Chandra Kumar reported in 2021 (5) GLT 193, (ii) In the case of Abul Kalam Azad and Anr. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in (2023) 3 GLR 116, (iii) In the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , (iv) In the case of Mizanur Rahman Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2013(2) GLT 866, (v) In the case of KeraleeyaSamajam & Anr. Vs. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in (2023) 3 GLR 116, (iii) In the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , (iv) In the case of Mizanur Rahman Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2013(2) GLT 866, (v) In the case of KeraleeyaSamajam & Anr. Vs. Pratibha Dattatray Kulkarni (Dead) through LRs & Ors. reported in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21660-21661 of 2019, (vi) In the case of Digambar Ramchandra Bawaskar Vs. Soma Prabhu Pawar and Ors. reported in 2018(1) MHLJ 169 , (vii) In the case of Pannalal Ganguly vs. state of Tripura & 2 Ors. reported in AIR 1992 GAU 55 , (viii) In the case of Parasmoni Das. Vs. Food Corporation of India reported in (2003) 2 GLT 514, (IX) In the case of State of Mizoram Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association reported in 2004 (0) AIJEL-SC 28850, (X) In the case of The State of Assam Vs. Mrs. Usha Rani Goswami and Ors. reported in Review Petition No. 81/2016, (XI) In the case of Junu Das Vs. State of Assam reported in 2024 4 GLR 514, 25. Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General for the State, submits that the case as projected by the writ petitioners in these two connected writ petitions is with regard to non-payment of the purported arrear salary of Primary/Elementary Teachers serving under the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, with effect from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013, which is claimed to be made as per recommendation made by the 5th CPC. 26. Learned Advocate General, while raising preliminary objection, submits that the writ petitions under consideration are barred by delay and laches as is evident from the challenges made therein which pertains to Minutes of Arunachal Teachers Association (ATA) meeting dated 21.09.2011, Recommendation of the High Power Committee dated 12.09.2012, Order dated 15.02.2013 and the Speaking Order dated 04.10.2014. He submits that the writ petitions are clearly barred by delay and laches which are not only inordinate but the same have also remained unexplained. 28. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General, submits that the prayer number (c) made in the writ petitions are a challenge to the minutes of the meeting dated 21.09.2011 of the Arunachal Teachers Association. He submits that the writ petitions are clearly barred by delay and laches which are not only inordinate but the same have also remained unexplained. 28. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General, submits that the prayer number (c) made in the writ petitions are a challenge to the minutes of the meeting dated 21.09.2011 of the Arunachal Teachers Association. The said Association is a private body and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is clearly not maintainable. Even assuming but not admitting that the writ petitions can be allowed to be maintained in spite of the objection as above, the said prayer number (c) certainly cannot be entertained in absence of Arunachal Teachers Association as a party to the proceedings. The said Association not having been made a party, the writ petitions are not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary party. 29. He further submits that even assuming but not admitting that the prayer (c) made in the writ petitions as the preliminary objections so raised in the preceding paragraphs can be ignored, the fact remains that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were admittedly members of Arunachal Teachers Association which had renounced the claims so made in the present writ petitions. In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are barred by the principles of waiver and estoppel. 30. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General, submits that it is apparent that in view of the bar of waiver and estoppel as indicated above, the petitioners formed a new Association i.e. All Arunachal Pradesh Elementary Teachers Association and preferred the writ petition being WP(C) No. 466/2022 after a long and inordinate delay. Evidently, the petitioners have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. On this count also the writ petitions, particularly WP(C) No. 466/2022, are not maintainable. 31. Mr. Evidently, the petitioners have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. On this count also the writ petitions, particularly WP(C) No. 466/2022, are not maintainable. 31. Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General, on the merits of the case, by referring to various orders and notifications issued by the Government, submits that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by applying its best wisdom and having considered all aspects of the matter including financial implication thereof, had taken a conscious policy decision to extend actual financial benefit in terms of the Government of India letter dated 04.04.2002, although not applicable, to the aforementioned categories of Teachers from 01-04-2013 onward with notional pay fixation benefit without arrears, vide order No. ED2/550/2009 dated 15.02.2013, which is within the prerogative and discretion of the State Government. He submits that such decision and order of the State Government being in the realm of policy decision is not open to judicial review as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court while exercising judicial review should not interfere with the policy decisions having financial implication on the State. He further submits that in a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that the recommendations of Pay Commissions are not binding upon the State Governments and as such, the State may not accept the Pay Commission's recommendation. Hence, the instant writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not tenable in law and the same are liable to be dismissed, being devoid of any merit. 32. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the following judgements:- 1. State of Maharashtra & Anr. -VS-Bhagwan & Others, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 193 . 2. M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association-VS-State of M.P. & Anr, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 646 . 3. State of Punjab & Others -VS-Amar Nath Goyal & Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 754 . 4. K.S. Krishnaswamy & Others -VS- Union of India & Another, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 215. 33. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record. 34. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. 4. K.S. Krishnaswamy & Others -VS- Union of India & Another, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 215. 33. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record. 34. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, strenuously argued by taking this court to different stages and the affidavits (counter affidavits, additional affidavits and affidavits in reply), essentially, the claim of the writ petitioners is for payment of arrear salary with effect from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013. 35. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, since the learned Advocate General has seriously raised the maintainability of the present writ petitions on the ground of, among others, delay and laches as well as doctrine of estoppel and waiver, I deem it appropriate to consider the same. 36. Admittedly, the challenge made pertains to minutes of Arunachal Teachers Association (ATA) meeting dated 21.09.2011, recommendation of the High Power Committee dated 12.09.2012, Order dated 15.02.2013 and the Speaking Order dated 04.10.2014. However, having considered that some of the petitioners have approached the Court in the year 2014 by filing WP(C) 463/2014, although same was dismissed on withdrawal, liberty was granted to file fresh and accordingly, the present writ petition being WP(C) 151/2018 has been filed, I am of the view that there is no delay and laches and as such the present writ petitions are not barred by delay and laches. Having regard to the plea of writ petitions having been hit by principles of estoppel and waiver, I am persuaded to hold that there is some force to certain extent as the petitioners in both the writ petitions are admittedly members of Arunachal Teachers Association which had renounced the claim so made in the present writ petitions. However, having considered the nature of claim, I am of the view that petitioners cannot be non-suited only on the above principles and thus, inclined to consider on merits of the matter as the said plea would be considered with the merit (infra). 37. Undisputably, the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations came to be implemented by the Government of India vide Notification No. GSR-569(E), dated 30.09.1997. Subsequently, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh implemented the 5th CPC vide Notification No. FIN/E/II/77/97, dated 09.10.1997. 37. Undisputably, the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations came to be implemented by the Government of India vide Notification No. GSR-569(E), dated 30.09.1997. Subsequently, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh implemented the 5th CPC vide Notification No. FIN/E/II/77/97, dated 09.10.1997. It was followed by another Office Memorandum No. FIN/E/II/77/97, dated 23.10.1997, whereby it was clarified that revision of pay scales in respect of Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the Part 'A' of the First Schedule would be applicable. Thus, as per the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 23.10.1997, the pay scales as notified in Part 'B' and Part 'C' of the schedule would not be applicable to the Government employees of Arunachal Pradesh. It is taken note that prior to implementation of the 5th CPC, the Elementary Teachers were drawing a pay scale of Rs. 1350-50- 450-1440-40-1800-50-2200/1400-40-1800-50-2300/-. Their pay scale was revised under the 5th CPC and accordingly, Elementary Teachers were paid at the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 (Entry Scale). The Senior Scale was revised to S-9 and they were revised to the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- and Selection Scale was revised to S-10 and revised to pay scale of Rs. 5500- 175-9000/-. 38. It is seen that the State respondents have clarified the implementation of First Schedule, Part 'A' of the 5th CPC. Having considered the Office Memorandum dated 23.10.1997, issued by Government of Arunachal Pradesh implementing recommendation of the 5th CPC in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in respect of part 'A' of First Schedule, I am of the view that no arrear salary is pending in respect of Primary /Elementary Teachers against the recommendation of 5th CPC. 39. Record reveals that after implementation of the 5th CPC, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had also implemented the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission vide Office Memorandum No.FIN/E-II/22/2008 dated 05.01.2009. Accordingly, the pay scale of Primary/Elementary Teachers under the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh was again revised as per the 6th CPC and ordered for implementation of Part 'B' pay scale under the 6th CPC for teachers serving under Government of Arunachal Pradesh corresponding to the 5th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, vide order No.ED.2/556/2009 dated 08.09.2009. It is noticed that all the teachers serving under Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, including petitioners have received the revised pay scale under the 6th CPC as notified by the Education Department. 40. It is noticed that all the teachers serving under Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, including petitioners have received the revised pay scale under the 6th CPC as notified by the Education Department. 40. Perusal of the record reveals that Arunachal Teachers Association (ATA), under which the petitioners herein are also the members, has demanded revision and enhancement of their pay scale as per Govt. of India Letter No. F.5-21/97-UT.1, dated 04.04.2002 after having been received revised pay scale as per the 5th CPC and the 6th CPC. Perusal of the above letter dated 04.04.2002 issued by Government of India, clearly shows that same was meant for Union Territories mentioned therein. Thus, it would not be applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. However, in response to such demand of the said Arunachal Teachers Association, it appears that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has decided to accept the request of the said Association. Accordingly, the pay scale of the Elementary Teachers etc. serving under the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh was revised and re-fixed vide order No. ED2/550/2009, dated 15-02-2013, issued by Commissioner (Education), the Government of Arunachal Pradesh as per revised pay scale fixed by the Government of India vide letter No. F.5-21/97-UT.1, dated 04-04-2002, although such pay scale was specifically meant for employees of Union Territories, Government of India and not for Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Bare perusal of the order dated 15-02-2013 makes it clear that the concerned teachers including the petitioners were already enjoying the benefit of the 5th CPC recommendation and what was granted by the said order was an additional benefit in terms of the Government of India letter dated 04.04.2002. 41. It is also seen that in order to pay the Primary/Elementary Teachers including the petitioners serving under Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, higher pay scale as per the Government of India letter dated 04.04.2002, the revised pay scale vide order dated 15.02.2013, was notionally fixed with effect from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 and actual benefit of the revision was granted with effect from 01.04.2013. Accordingly, all the teachers represented by the Arunachal Teachers Association had accepted the revised pay scale as notified by the Education Department and have received their pay scale. Thus, the Primary/Elementary Teachers including the petitioners serving under Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh have received their revised pay scale under the 5th and 6th CPC. 42. Accordingly, all the teachers represented by the Arunachal Teachers Association had accepted the revised pay scale as notified by the Education Department and have received their pay scale. Thus, the Primary/Elementary Teachers including the petitioners serving under Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh have received their revised pay scale under the 5th and 6th CPC. 42. Regard being had to the main thrust of submission as strenuously urged by the learned for the petitioners to the effect that the respondent authorities have admitted the claim of the petitioners in the earlier affidavit and cannot turn around and denied the same by filing fresh affidavit, on having considered the categorical stand of the State respondents that the Nodal Officer (Court), the Office of the Directorate of Elementary Education, namely, Shri Bamar Yinyo who is also an interested party in the aforesaid writ petition and the then Director of Elementary Education namely, Shri Otem Tayeng, had filed false affidavits dated 27.02.2022, 18.10.2022 and Additional Affidavit dated 16.05.2023 whereby, the claim of the petitioners was falsely admitted by misrepresentation of the factual aspects of the case without the knowledge and approval of the competent authority of the Education Department at the Government level and upon having detected such serious misconduct committed by the aforementioned two officers, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had placed them under suspension and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them, this court is not persuaded to take a view that the claim of the petitioners has been admitted, but constrained to observe that such action initiated against be brought to its logical conclusion. 43. I have perused the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the parties. On careful reading of the said judgements, I find that the decisions rendered are on its facts and circumstances of those cases and are settled principles, which, in any manner, do not come to aid of the petitioners as the claim of the petitioners is totally different in the present case. Perusal of the various other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, clearly shows that the recommendations of Pay Commission are not binding upon the State Governments and the State Governments may or may not accept the Pay Commission’s recommendation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the court while exercising judicial review should not interfere with the policy decisions having financial implication on the State. 44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the court while exercising judicial review should not interfere with the policy decisions having financial implication on the State. 44. In the present case, as noted herein above, in order to pay higher pay scale to the teachers including the petitioners serving under Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, as per the Government of India letter dated 04.04.2002, the revised pay scale vide order dated 15.02.2013, was notionally fixed with effect from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 and actual benefit of the revision was granted with effect from 01.04.2013. All the teachers, including the petitioners, represented by the Arunachal Teachers Association had accepted the revised pay scale as notified by the Education Department vide order No. ED2/550/2009, dated 15.02.2013, and have accepted and received their pay scale. The Teachers including the petitioners serving under Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh have already received their revised pay scale under the 5th CPC and the 6th CPC. Thus, the petitioners are barred from claiming arrear salary with effect from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013. 45. In view of what has been discussed herein above and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered view that the claim of petitioners for payment of arrear salary with effect from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 is unjustified and they are not entitled for arrear salary with effect from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 46. Consequently, writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. However, no order as to cost(s).