JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr M P Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms K Phukan, the learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Mr R Borpujari, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Ms S Sharma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6 and Mr T R Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner, herein, has approached this Court, seeking appropriate writ, direction and order to set aside the communications dated 11.04.2022, 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and further seeking appropriate directions to the effect that the petitioner should be paid her salary, in terms with the communications dated 24.08.2018, 21.08.2019 and 16.07.2019. 3. To ascertain the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts, which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 4. The Gauhati High Court had issued an advertisement on 12.06.2015, calling for filling up of 191 vacancies of Stenographer Grade-III, for the district judiciary of Assam, in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,200-20,200 +GP 2900 (PB-2) plus other allowances, as admissible under the Rules. The petitioner duly participated in the said proceedings and by the notification dated 30.07.2016, the petitioner was provisionally selected as Stenographer Grade-III, on merits. Subsequent thereto, vide an order dated 21.09.2016, the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade-III in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, against the newly created post of Stenographer Grade-III, in the Pay Band -2 (Rs. 5,200-20,200+GP 2900) plus other allowances, per month, as admissible as per Government Rules, with effect from the date of her joining. On 22.09.2016, the petitioner joined as a Stenographer Grade-III, in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon. 5. It is relevant to take note of that on 16.07.2019, the Joint Registrar, Finance of the Gauhati High Court, had issued communication to all concerned that, in respect to the initial revised basic pay, as per ROP 2010, pertaining to the Pay Band – Rs. 5,200- 20,200 + Rs. 2900/-, it would be Rs. 7,170 + 2,900/- (GP)+310 (Advance increment @ 3%) = Rs. 10,380/-. It was further mentioned in the said communication that as regards the initial revised basic pay, as per ROP 2017, Pay Band Rs. 14,000/- - Rs. 5,200- 20,200 + Rs. 2900/-, it would be Rs. 7,170 + 2,900/- (GP)+310 (Advance increment @ 3%) = Rs. 10,380/-. It was further mentioned in the said communication that as regards the initial revised basic pay, as per ROP 2017, Pay Band Rs. 14,000/- - Rs. 49000/- + GP Rs. 7,400/-, would be Rs. 27,990/- (including GP of Rs. 7,400/-) (modified table No. 6.8.10). In view of the said communication dated 16.07.2019, the petitioner’s salary was accordingly refixed with basic pay of Rs. 20,590+GP Rs.. 7,400/-, vide an order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, dated 21.08.2019. Though the order dated 21.08.2019 was passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, but the petitioner was not granted the said benefit and under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.07.2020. On the basis of the said representation, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 6 that a clarification has been sought for from the Finance (PRU) Department, Government of Assam, through the LR and the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department, as regards the initial pay structure of Stenographer Grade-III, who joined in service on 22.09.2016, i.e., before publication of the ROP 2017 (the ROP Rules were notified vide a notification dated 17.03.2017 and was given effect from 01.04.2016). 6. Subsequent thereto, on 11.04.2022, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (PRU) Department, issued a communication to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, providing the clarification. The said communication is impugned in the present proceedings. It was stated that as per Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2010, the Government in the Finance (PRU) Department, increased the minimum of the pay in Pay Bands of 15 grade pays and refix the pay of Government servants who entered into service on or after 04.02.2010, by multiplying the minimum of pay in the revised pay scale. The aforementioned pay was only meant for directly recruited posts. It was also stated that in the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2010, the Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/- (pre-revised Rs. 3,850-Rs. 7,350/-) was not included. It was also mentioned that the Stenographers Grade-III were recruited after the date of effect of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017 (for short, “the Rules of 2017”), i.e., 01.04.2016, and as such, that pay is to be fixed as per the Rules of 2017, i.e., pay in the PB+GP, i.e., Rs. 3,850-Rs. 7,350/-) was not included. It was also mentioned that the Stenographers Grade-III were recruited after the date of effect of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017 (for short, “the Rules of 2017”), i.e., 01.04.2016, and as such, that pay is to be fixed as per the Rules of 2017, i.e., pay in the PB+GP, i.e., Rs. 14,000/-+7,400/-= Rs. 21,400/-. The District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, was, therefore, requested to do the needful. 7. Pursuant thereto, the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, informed the Treasury, Assam, that, in terms with the communication dated 11.04.2022, and taking into account that the petitioner herein, was drawing a higher scale of pay w.e.f. 22.09.2016 to 31.08.2022 and the accumulated amount was Rs. 1,68,644/-, the said excessive amount which is refundable, shall be refunded through pay bill in equal monthly installment of Rs. 5,000/-, from the pay bill of September, 2022. In other words, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was required to be deducted from the pay bill of the petitioner, every month, w.e.f. September, 2022, towards realization of an amount of Rs. 1,68,644/-. 8. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court, seeking appropriate directions for setting aside of the communications, referred to hereinabove, as well as also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the pay, in terms with the communication dated 16.07.2019. 9. The record reveals that the respondent No. 4, i.e., the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. From the said affidavit-in-opposition, it appears that when the petitioner joined the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, on 22.09.2016, in the pay band of Rs. 5,200-20,200/-+ GP of Rs. 2,900/- and other allowances, her initial fixation, i.e., Rs. 7,170/- + Rs. 2,900/-= Rs. 10,070/-, was done in terms with the ROP 2010 and ROP 2017 was yet to be published and with this, as per the Government’s letter, one advance increment amounting to Rs. 310/-, therefore, totalling to Rs. 10,380/-. It was further mentioned that the pay band of the petitioner was prepared, fixing her initial basic pay at Rs. 27,990/- and was submitted to the Treasury Office, Nagaon, but the bill was objected and returned by the Treasury Office, along with an objection slip dated 04.09.2019. 310/-, therefore, totalling to Rs. 10,380/-. It was further mentioned that the pay band of the petitioner was prepared, fixing her initial basic pay at Rs. 27,990/- and was submitted to the Treasury Office, Nagaon, but the bill was objected and returned by the Treasury Office, along with an objection slip dated 04.09.2019. In response to the said objection, a letter dated 19.09.2019 was re-submitted to the Treasury Officer, Nagaon, who after verification of all the documents vide objection slip dated 30.09.2019, suggested to fix the revised pay structure of the petitioner under Rule 8 A (a), as per Fitment Table at Appendix-I of the Rules of 2017, at Page No. 308, appended therein, by the Finance (PRU) Department Notification dated 17.03.2017. Accordingly, the initial basic pay of the petitioner was again fixed at Rs. 22,050/-. In the meantime, a letter dated 03.07.2019, was sent to the Commissioner and Secretary, Finance (PRU) Department, Government of Assam, seeking his/her opinion, whether the initial basic pay of the petitioner was correct or not. However, no reply was received till August, 2020. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had submitted representations on 06.08.2019, 01.07.2020 and 08.09.2020, which were duly considered. 10. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. This affidavit-in-oppositions throws some light as to what the petitioner, as per the Finance Department, is actually entitled to. It was mentioned that the Rules of 2017 was published on 17.03.2017, which came into force, w.e.f. 01.04.2016. It was stated that the petitioner was appointed between the date of coming into effect of the Rules of 2017, and the date of publication of the Rules of 2017, in the scale of pay of PB-2-Rs. 5,200-20,200+GP 2900 (ROP 2010). It was further mentioned that the petitioner’s pay was required to be fixed as per ROP 2010, i.e., in the pay structure of PB-2, Rs. 5,200-20,200 + GP Rs. 2900/-, which was applicable at the time of her joining. In other words, the Petitioner’s pay should be Rs. 8,100/- (Rs. 5,200/- + Rs. 2,900). It was further mentioned that the corresponding revised pay of Rs. 5,200-20,200+GP Rs. 2,900/-, became Rs. 14,000-Rs. 70,000/- + GP Rs. 7,400/-, as per the Rules of 2017. So, after the publication of the Rules of 2017, on 17.03.2017, the petitioner’s pay ought to have been refixed at Rs. 21,400/- (Rs. 14,000/- + Rs. 8,100/- (Rs. 5,200/- + Rs. 2,900). It was further mentioned that the corresponding revised pay of Rs. 5,200-20,200+GP Rs. 2,900/-, became Rs. 14,000-Rs. 70,000/- + GP Rs. 7,400/-, as per the Rules of 2017. So, after the publication of the Rules of 2017, on 17.03.2017, the petitioner’s pay ought to have been refixed at Rs. 21,400/- (Rs. 14,000/- + Rs. 7,400/-), with effect from her date of joining, i.e., 22.09.2016, but erroneously, it was fixed at Rs. 27,990/-, by the office of the Joint Registrar (Finance,) Gauhati High Court, vide the letter dated 16.07.2019. It was further mentioned that on the basis of an erroneous fixation by the Joint Registrar (Finance), Gauhati High Court, the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, had passed the order on 21.08.2019, refixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 27,990/-. 11. It was the specific case of the Finance Department that the pay structure of the Stenographer Grade-III, as per the ROP 2010, is PB-2 Rs. 5,200-Rs. 20,200+ GP Rs. 2,900/- (pre-revised pay scale, as per ROP 1998, of which is Rs. 3,850 - Rs. 7,350/-). Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2010, it was mentioned that 15 (fifteen) grade pays, corresponding to 15 (fifteen) Nos. of pre-revised pay scale, as direct entry pay scales were mentioned. But the said pay structure was only applicable at the time of entry in the service of those Government Servants, on or after 04.02.2010. It was also mentioned that in the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2010, the GP of Rs., 2,900/- (corresponding pre-revised pay scale of which is Rs. 3,850/-Rs. 7,350/-) was not included, as this pay scale was meant for promotional posts. 12. It was further reiterated that as the petitioner was recruited in the pay scale of PB- 2, Rs. 5,200-20,200/- + GP Rs. 2,900/- on 22.09.2016, her pay was erroneously fixed at Rs. 10,070/- (Rs. 7,170/- + Rs. 2,900/-) and this was done by wrongly multiplying the Fitment Factor of 1.86 to Rs. 3,850/- and rounded off to Rs. 7,170/-. 13. It was also mentioned that multiplying by the Fitment Factor of 1.86 would only be permissible, in respect to those persons, who were appointed prior to 31.12.2005, as would be seen in Clause-I of the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2010. Paragraph-7 of the said affidavit being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:- “7. 3,850/- and rounded off to Rs. 7,170/-. 13. It was also mentioned that multiplying by the Fitment Factor of 1.86 would only be permissible, in respect to those persons, who were appointed prior to 31.12.2005, as would be seen in Clause-I of the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2010. Paragraph-7 of the said affidavit being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:- “7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that the pay scale of the petitioner and similarly placed Stenographers Grade-III is as per recommendation of the Shetty Commission, which is as follows: Grades Mode of Recruitment Pay Scale Stenographer Direct Rs. 3850-7350 (Existing Pay Scale) The corresponding revised pay scales are shown as follows: ROP 1998 ROP 2010 ROP 2017 Rs. 3850- 7350/- Rs. 5200-20200+GP 2900/- Rs. 14000/- 70000 + GP 7400/- Accordingly, the Government Notification bearing eCF No. 149385/935 dated 30.05.2024 notified the pay structure for Stenographer- Grade-III, in the Subordinate Judiciary as PB-2, Rs. 14,000-70,000 + GP 7,400/-, in the line with the Shetty Commission’s recommendations.” 14. From the above quoted paragraph, it would be seen that it is the specific stand of the Finance Department that the pay scale of the petitioner and similarly placed Stenographer Grade-III, is as per the recommendation of the Shetty Commisison, which recommended the pay scale at Rs. 3,850-Rs. 7,350/-. At Paragraph No. 14 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro), by the letter dated 07.09.2022, forwarded an application of one Azizul Hoque Choudhury, seeking review of the Government’s letter dated 11.04.2022. It was mentioned that the Finance (PRU) Department had examined the matter on various occasions and vide letter dated 12.04.2024, the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, was requested to fix the pay, as per ROP 2017 and the matter was examined in the Finance (PRU) Department and by the communication dated 15.12.2022, it was mentioned that Sri Azizul Hoque Choudhury would be entitled to fixation of the pay as per the Rules of 2017, i.e., pay in PB+GP Rs. 14,000/- + Rs. 7,400/-. 15. 14,000/- + Rs. 7,400/-. 15. It is further seen that vide another communication dated 12th of April, 2024, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (PRU) Department, has also further informed the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department, that the District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon, was informed vide the communication dated 15.12.2022, to fix Sri Azizul Hoque Choudhury, as per the Rules of 2017. 16. The record reveals that an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 28.04.2025, subsequent to the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent No. 2. In the said additional affidavit, the petitioner has brought in the Fitment Table No. 10, as well as a notification dated 19.02.2011. The Fitment Table No. 10 was brought in to show, as to how the basic pay of Rs. 3,850/-, was revised to Rs. 7,170/-. The notification dated 19.02.2011, was brought on record to show that the grade pay of Rs. 2,400/- was revised to Rs. 2,900/-. Further to that, a communication dated 16.03.2022 was brought on record to show that the Finance (PRU) Department had written a letter to Azizul Hoque Choudhury, wherein it has been mentioned that initial fixation of salary of Stenographer Grade-III, who joined in the year 2016, before publication of the ROP 2017, action may be taken as per the proviso of the Notification dated 17.03.2017. The writ petition was taken up on 08.05.2025. After hearing, this Court fixed the present proceedings today. 17. In the backdrop of the pleadings, let this Court now take note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 18. Mr M P Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the materials on record would show that the Shetty Commission’s recommendation has been duly accept in respect to the pay scale of the Stenographer Grade-III, which is at the pay scale of Rs. 3,850-Rs. 7,350/-. He submitted that a perusal of the ROP 2010, would show that 10 (ten) pay scales, as per the ROP 1998, ranging from Rs. 2,600-Rs. 4,840/- to Rs. 3,580-Rs. 8,750/-, were brought within the purview of the revised pay scale of Rs. 5,200 to Rs. 20,200/-, with different grade pays, ranging from Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 2,800/-. 3,850-Rs. 7,350/-. He submitted that a perusal of the ROP 2010, would show that 10 (ten) pay scales, as per the ROP 1998, ranging from Rs. 2,600-Rs. 4,840/- to Rs. 3,580-Rs. 8,750/-, were brought within the purview of the revised pay scale of Rs. 5,200 to Rs. 20,200/-, with different grade pays, ranging from Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 2,800/-. The learned counsel further referred to the notification dated 19.02.2011, as to how the grade pays of posts in Pay Band-1 and 2 were enhanced by Rs. 500/-. He submitted that as per the revised pay scale, in terms with ROP 2010, pertaining to Stenographer Grade-III, was Rs. 5,200-Rs. 20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/-. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in the Fitment Table No. 10, was applicable in respect to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3,850/- to Rs. 7,350/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the basic pay of the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3,850/- was revised in the running pay band to Rs. 7,170/-. He, therefore, submitted that the Rules of 2010 makes it very clear that in respect to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 3,850/- Rs. 7,350/-, with the revised pay band of Rs. 5,200-20,200, the basic pay of Rs. 3,850/- became Rs. 7,170/-. This being the mandate of the Rules of 2010, by way of a Notification or an Office Memorandum issued on 28.07.2010, this very aspect cannot be modified, taking into account the settled principles of law that the statutory rule cannot be overridden by way of an Office Memorandum or a Notification. 19. The learned counsel further submitted that if the petitioner herein’s revised pay is to be taken on the basis of Rs. 5,200/-, on the ground that he was appointed in the pay band of Rs. 5,200-20,000, it would amount to fixation of the petitioner’s pay at the pre-revised rate of Rs. 2,610-4,840/-, wherein the initial basic pay of Rs. 2,610/- was revised to Rs. 5,200/-. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner’s salary was rightly entitled to Rs. 27,990/-, w.e.f. 22.09.2016, the date on which, the petitioner joined her services. 20. Per contra, Mr R Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department submitted that the petitioner herein, has not challenged the advertisement or even her appointment, wherein she was appointed to a post where the pay scale was Rs. 5,200-20,200/-, with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/-. 20. Per contra, Mr R Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department submitted that the petitioner herein, has not challenged the advertisement or even her appointment, wherein she was appointed to a post where the pay scale was Rs. 5,200-20,200/-, with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/-. Taking into account that the petitioner had not challenged the advertisement as well as her appointment letter, the fixation of the petitioner’s revised pay has to be taken by adding Rs. 5,200/-+ Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/-, which is Rs. 8,100/-. He further submitted that in terms with the Rules of 2017, as the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/- became Rs. 14,000-70,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 7,400/-, the petitioner’s salary as on the date of her appointment on 22.09.2016, should have been Rs. 21,400/-, (i.e., Rs. 14,000/- + Rs. 7,400/-). However, it is on a wrong calculation, the Joint Registrar (Finance) of the Gauhati High Court had issued a communication dated 16.07.2019 and on the basis thereof, the petitioner has been granted an additional amount, which is, therefore, required to be recovered. He further submitted that as the petitioner is a direct recruit, that too, after 01.04.2006, the petitioner cannot insist upon the pre-revised pay of Rs. 3,850/- to Rs. 7,350/-. Further to that, as the petitioner was appointed after 04.02.2010, the question of applying the 1.86 Fitment Factor in the case of the petitioner, does not arise. The learned counsel for the Finance Department further referred to a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal –Vs- Subhash Kumar Chatterjee and Others; reported in (2010) 11 SCC 694 , and more particularly, to Paragraph No. 30, to buttress his point that the State Government having accepted the recommendation of the successive pay commission and having given effect to those recommendation by framing statutory rules, being the ROPA Rules and the scales of the employees have been accordingly fixed, by way of a writ of mandamus, the State cannot be asked to act, contrary to law. 21. I have given my anxious consideration to their respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record, referred to hereinabove. 22. 21. I have given my anxious consideration to their respective submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record, referred to hereinabove. 22. In the affidavit of the respondent No.2, more particularly, at Paragraph No. 7, as quoted hereinabove, it is admitted by the Finance Department that the recommendation of the Shetty Commission in respect to the Stenographer Grade-III, was duly accepted and on the basis thereof, the Stenographer Grade-III were granted the pay scale of Rs. 3,850- Rs. 7,350/-. It is also an admitted fact from the very paragraph quoted above that Rs. 3,850- Rs. 7,350/-, as per the ROP, 1998, was revised to Rs. 5,200-20,200 + GP of Rs. 2,900/-, as per ROP, 2010, and subsequently, as per the Rules of 2017, the revised scale is Rs. 14,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- plus GP of Rs. 7,400/-. The question which arises in the instant proceedings is, as to whether the person, who has been appointed in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,200/-20,200/- plus GP of Rs. 2,900/-, would be paid the amount of Rs. 5,200/-, as his initial pay with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/-, or the person would be paid in terms with the Fitment Table, pertaining to the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 3,850-Rs.7,350/-. 23. It is relevant at this stage, to take note of Rule 4 (d) of the ROP, 2010, which defines the term-“pay band”, to mean in relation to any post/grade, specified in Column- (1) of the Schedule, means the “pay band” specified against the post in the Column-(3) thereof. 24. Rule 4 (g) defines the term- “revised pay structure”, in relation to any post, specified in Column-(1) of the Schedule, to mean the pay band and the grade pay, specified against that post, unless a different revised pay band and grade pay is notified separately, for the said post. The “existing basic pay” and the “revised basic pay” have also been defined in the Rules of 2010. In terms with Rule - 4 (a), “the existing basic pay” means the pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay, including stagnation increment(s), but does not include any type of pay, like Special Pay etc. The “existing basic pay” and the “revised basic pay” have also been defined in the Rules of 2010. In terms with Rule - 4 (a), “the existing basic pay” means the pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay, including stagnation increment(s), but does not include any type of pay, like Special Pay etc. On the other hand, Rule 4 (h) defines “the revised basic pay” in the revised pay structure, to mean the pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay and adhoc fitment benefit, if any, but does not include any other pay. 25. In the backdrop of the above, it would be seen at Serial Nos. 4 to 13 of Appendix- IV to the ROP, 2010, there are various pre-revised pay scales, ranging from Rs. 2,610/- to Rs. 4,840/- to Rs. 3,580/- to Rs. 8,750/-, which were brought within the revised pay scale of Rs. 5,200/- to Rs. 20,200/-, however, with separate grade pay. It is pertinent to observe that the concept of grade pay was introduced in the ROP, 2010. 26. It is also seen that for the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 3,850-Rs. 7,350/-, the revised pay scale was Rs. 5,200-20,200/-, with grade pay of Rs. 2,400/-. The notification th issued on 19 of February, 2011, shows the said grade pay of Rs. 2,400/- was increased to Rs. 2,900/-. 27. Rule 8 of the ROP, 2010, stipulates the fixation of initial pay in revised pay structure. Sub-Rule (A) of Rule 8, stipulates that the initial pay of a Government st employee, who is in service as on 31 of December, 2005, and is entitled under the ROP 2010, to draw pay in the revised pay structure, shall unless, the Governor of Assam, by special order directs otherwise in any special case, be fixed on the date he becomes so entitled, in respect of the post or posts referred to in Sub-Rule (B). Clause (a) of Rule 8 (A) stipulates that in cases of all Government employees, the pay in the pay band will be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay, as on 01.01.2006, by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. Clause (a) of Rule 8 (A) stipulates that in cases of all Government employees, the pay in the pay band will be determined by multiplying the existing basic pay, as on 01.01.2006, by a factor of 1.86 and rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10. It further stipulates that if the minimum of the pay band is higher than the amount so arrived at, after multiplying the existing basic pay by the factor of 1.86, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the higher pay band. Sub-Clause-(iii) of Rule 8 (A) is very relevant, taking into account it refers to the Fitment Table in Appendix-VII of ROP 2010, and as such, the same is reproduced hereinunder:- “8 (A) (a) (iii) Wherever bunching is occurring during the initial stages for some of the pre-revised scales due to the fact that the employees at these stages will have their salaries fixed at the minimum of the pay band, as per Clause (ii) above, an ad-hoc fitment benefit at the rate of 50% of the first increment, (rounded off to the nearest Rs.10), in the particular pre-revised scale, shall be given for subsequent stages till the bunching of pay is removed.” 28. From the above noted Clause, it would be seen that wherever bunching is occurring due to the initial stages for some of the pre-revised scales, due to the fact that employees at this stage, will have their salaries fixed at the minimum of the pay band, as per Clause (ii) and ad-hoc fitment benefit at the rate of 50% of the first increment (rounded off to the nearest Rs. 10), in the particular pre-revised scale, shall be given for subsequent stages till the bunching of the pay is removed. The reference made of the fitment benefit in Rule 8 (A) (a) (iii) is shown in Appendix-VII, which are the fitment table. 29. It would be further seen that from the fitment table, more particularly, Fitment Table Nos. 4 to 13 of Appendix-VII, that the basic pay in the pre-revised pay scale has been duly mentioned. A person, who is there in the pre-revised scale of pay at Rs. 2,610/-, Rs. 4,840/- or even Rs. 2,650-Rs. 5,200, their initial pre-revised basic pay is Rs. 2,610/- or Rs. 2,650/- would be in revised pay in the running Pay Band of Rs. 5,200/-. A person, who is there in the pre-revised scale of pay at Rs. 2,610/-, Rs. 4,840/- or even Rs. 2,650-Rs. 5,200, their initial pre-revised basic pay is Rs. 2,610/- or Rs. 2,650/- would be in revised pay in the running Pay Band of Rs. 5,200/-. On the other hand, a person who is in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3,850-Rs. 7,350/-, his initial pre-revised basic pay would be Rs. 3,850/- and the revised pay in the running pay band would be Rs. 7,170/-. At this stage, it is also relevant to observe that if a person’s initial pay is Rs. 3,850/-, and the same is multiplied by the fitment factor of 1.86, i.e., Rs. 3,850/- x 1.86, the resultant revised pay would be Rs. 7,161/- and applying Rule 8 (A) (a) (i) of the ROP, 2010, which mandates rounding off the resultant figure to the next multiple of 10, the amount would be Rs. 7,170/-. 30. From the materials on record, there is no denial to the fact that being in the Stenographer Grade-III, the pre-revised scale of pay, as per ROP 1998, is Rs. 3,850/- to Rs. 7,350/- and considering that the first initial pay in the said pre-revised pay scale is Rs. 3,850/-, which is at Serial No. 1 of the Fitment Table No. 10, the corresponding revised basic pay would be Rs. 7,170/-. The amount of Rs. 7,170/- has to be added with the appropriate grade pay and in the instant case, it would be Rs. 2,900/-. Therefore, the petitioner’s pay as on the date when she joined on 22.09.2016, should have been Rs. 7,170/- + Rs. 2,900/- = Rs. 10,070/-. This, however, is without taking into consideration, as to whether the person would be entitled to the annual increment. In the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2, it is stated about annual increment @ 3% was taken into consideration, i.e., Rs. 310/-. Nothing has been stated by the Finance Department whether the petitioner would be entitled to advance increment. As the Rules of 2017 was given effect from 01.04.2016, the amount of Rs. 10,070/-, if applied to the Fitment Table No. 6.8.10, the revised total pay would be Rs. 27,170/-, on the date the petitioner was appointed, i.e., 22.09.2016. However, if the petitioner is entitled to advance increment, the petitioner’s revised initial pay would be Rs. 27,990/-, based on pre-revised pay which would be Rs. 10,070/-, if applied to the Fitment Table No. 6.8.10, the revised total pay would be Rs. 27,170/-, on the date the petitioner was appointed, i.e., 22.09.2016. However, if the petitioner is entitled to advance increment, the petitioner’s revised initial pay would be Rs. 27,990/-, based on pre-revised pay which would be Rs. 7,170 + Rs. 2,900/- + Rs. 310/- = Rs. 10,380/-. 31. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the submission so made by Mr R Borpujari, to that effect that the petitioner has not challenged the advertisement as well as her letter of appointment, wherein the petitioner has been put at the pay band of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/-. In the opinion of this Court, the question of challenging the said advertisement or the appointment letter of the petitioner, does not arise, taking into account that the corresponding revised pay of Rs. 5,200- 20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,900/-, is in relation to the pre-revised pay of Rs. 3,850- Rs. 7,350/-. This Court further observes that the finding arrived at above is upon the interpretation of the ROP, 2010, and as such, the same cannot be said to be contrary to the ROP, 2010, for which the Judgment in the case of Subhash Kumar Chatterjee (supra), shall not apply. 32. In view of the above analysis and determination, the instant writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (I) The Petitioner’s initial pay, upon her joining on 22.09.2016, has to be fixed at Rs. 7,170/- + Rs. 2,900/- = Rs. 10,070/-. Applying the Fitment Table No. 6.8.10, the revised total pay would be Rs. 27,170/- of the Petitioner, on the date of her joining, i.e., 22.09.2016. The above is without taking into consideration, as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled to Advance Increment. It is observed that if the Advance Increment is added, the pre-revised total pay would be Rs. 10,380/-, and applying the Fitment Table, the salary of the petitioner would be Rs. 27,990/-. This Court directs the Respondent Authorities to verify whether the Petitioner would be entitled to annual increment, and if applicable, do the needful. (ii) The Respondent authorities, i.e., the Respondent Nos. 10,380/-, and applying the Fitment Table, the salary of the petitioner would be Rs. 27,990/-. This Court directs the Respondent Authorities to verify whether the Petitioner would be entitled to annual increment, and if applicable, do the needful. (ii) The Respondent authorities, i.e., the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, are directed to do the needful, thereby refix the initial salary of the Petitioner on the date of joining, on the basis of the observations made in Clause (i), hereinabove. (iii) The Respondents herein, on the basis of the above observations and directions made at Clause (i) and (ii) hereinabove, shall thereupon compute, as to whether the Petitioner is entitled for further amounts, or there is any case for recovery and proceed accordingly. (iv) Till such computations are not carried out, as per the directions hereinabove, there shall be no further recovery from the salary of the petitioner. (v) The said exercise be completed within 2 (two) months from the date, a certified copy of this Judgment is served upon the respondent No. 3 and 4. If the Petitioner is found entitled to any amount, the same be paid within 3 (three) months from the date, the certified copy of the instant Judgment is served upon the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. (v) The Treasury Officer shall, thereupon act, in terms with the above directions.