Subhasis Talapatra, J.

1. Some of the writ petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 230 of 2000, namely (1) Harendra Chandra Nath and (2) Gour Binode Ghosh, since deceased, through the legal heirs, have challenged the judgment and order dated 18.07.2007 as passed by the learned Single Judge by this intra-court appeal. The writ petitioners-appellants were appointed as the Under Graduate Teachers. Earlier the writ petitioners-appellants had approached this court praying for a direction for grant of the regular pay scale from their date of appointment. The respondent No.3 appointed some other persons along with the writ petitioners in the post of Under Graduate Teachers in the Education (School ) Department by Memorandum No.1(1- 97)-DSE/90, dated 31.07.1992 (Annexure-A series to the writ petition) on a fixed pay of Rs. 600/- per month. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 regularized 7 Teachers in the scale of pay of Rs. 970-2400/- from the date of their joining by the order No.F.1(1-10)-DSE/92-93(L), dated 23.04.1993 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) at random.

2. The genesis of the previous writ petition can be located in the said deprivation. The said writ petition being Civil Rule No. 87 of 1998 was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 20.01.1999 with an observation that the writ petitioners should file a representation to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, canvassing their grievances and in turn, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should after due consideration dispose of the said representation within 45 days.

While examining the claim of the writ petitioners, the respondent No. 2, the Secretary-cum-Commissioner to the Govt. of Tripura, Education Department found that the claim of the petitioners was just but he did not allay that the deprivation as expected. The respondent No.3 issued an order on 10.12.1999, granting regular pay scale of Rs.970-2400/- (pre-revised) in favour of the petitioners subject to condition that their pay should be notionally fixed upto the date of the said order. Being aggrieved, the appellants-writ petitioners along with some other writ petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a direction on the respondents for giving the writ petitioners actual financial benefit of regular pay scale from the date of their joining.

3. It has been averred in the writ petition that the similarly situated persons were given same benefit with effect from the date of their joining. In other words, even though the writ petitioners were entitled to get the actual financial benefit from the date of their joining but by virtue of the order dated 10.12.1999, the actual financial benefit was only given from the date of the order i.e. 10.12.1999 and the pay was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 970-2400/- (pre-revised) notionally from the date of their joining. It transpires that the petitioners were appointed on a consolidated fixed pay of Rs. 600/- per month vide Memorandum dated 31.07.1992 and the similarly situated persons who were initially appointed as the Under Graduate Fixed Pay Teachers were given benefit of the regular scale of Rs. 970-2400/- by the order dated 23.04.1993 from the date of their joining in the post of Under Graduate Teachers.

4. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2007, observed for obvious reason that the State respondents in the instant case nowhere in their counter affidavit claimed that the petitioners and the other under graduate teachers who were given back wages do not belong to the same class. In this view of the matter, the contention of the State respondents projected through Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Addl. GA does not hold water.

In addition, the learned Single Judge also noted that the respondent No.2 in his note dated 06.03.1999 made observation to the effect that the writ petitioners appeared to have been treated dissimilarly and that the records did not readily reveal any reason whatsoever, which resulted in such dissimilarity. Finally, the learned single Judge