S. Talapatra, J. - (1.)Heard Mr. S Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.)This is the second round of litigation by these 9 (nine) petitioners. On earlier occasion they filed the writ petitions separately. The petitioner No. 1, Sri Ratan Chakraborty, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 140/2020, the petitioner No.2, Sri Sudhamoy Chakraborty, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 137/2020, the petitioner No.3, Sri Shanti Bhusan Chakraborty, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 138/2020, the petitioner No.4, Sri Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 139/2020, the petitioner No.5, Sri Siddhartha Chakraborty, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 139/2020, the petitioner No.6, Sri Ashish Kumar Dey, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 141/2020, the petitioner No.7, Sri Kalipada Paul, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 142/2020, the petitioner No.8, Smt. Tamashi Choudhury, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 143/2020, the petitioner No.9, Sri Arun Kumar Singha, filed the writ petition being WP(C) No. 144/2020. All those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dtd. 26/2/2020 by a single judge of this court, observing as follows:
"Considering the issues involved, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the Government first examines the contentions of the petitioners and takes a decision in this regard. Let the respondents take a final decision on the representations of the petitioners within a period of 2(two) months from today. Decision recording brief reasons may be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to state if the decision of the Government aggrieves the petitioners, it would be open for them to take recourse to legal remedies."

(3.)By the subsequent order dtd. 12/3/2021 the learned single judge had clarified that further decision of the authorities has become redundant. By the memorandum dtd. 7/1/2021 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the respondents have taken the decision as asked to be taken by this court. It has been observed by that order that the petitioners are allowed to automatic upgradation of pay on their completion of four years of service during the period under ROP Rules 1988, prior to 1/1/1996, in line of the similar benefits, as extended to the stenographers of the Tripura Government Stenographers' Service, subject to adherence of the following conditions:
(i) in all cases, first automatic financial upgradation after 4 years service shall not be allowed to Courts Stenographers' if they are promoted to next higher post by that time;

(ii) in all cases, the Court Stenographers' concerned, who receive first authomatic financial upgradation after 4 years service, shall be entitled to second financial upgradation after total 17 years of continuous and satisfactory service, subject to condition that they are not promoted to the next higher post by that time;

(iii) Applying the principle of fixation of pay as laid down in the judgment delivered in WP(C) No. 245/2007 by Hon'ble High court of Tripura and similar cases, Court Stenographers concerned who have retired shall not be entitled to any arrear of pay. They shall, however, be entitled to notional fixation of pension prospectively from the date of this memorandum. Those of the petitioners of WP(C) No.136/2020 and nine other connected Writ Petitions who re in-service are entitled to notional fixation of pay with actual financial benefit prospectively from the date of this memorandum."

;