1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.

2. By means of filing this writ petitioner under Article 226 the writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

               “i. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to allow two non compounded advance increments to the Petitioners for having M. Tech Degree at the entry level in terms of UGC Pay Regulation, 2018 with arrear.

               ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to give the benefit of movement of AGP 7000 to the Petitioner No 1 w.e.f. 07.01.2016 on completion of 5 years service as Asstt. Professor having master degree.

               iii. Call for the records pertaining to the instant Writ Petition from the custody of the Respondents.

               iv. Make the Rules absolute after hearing the Parties

               And

               Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court may consider fit and proper.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in various Government Degree Colleges through a selection process conducted by the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC). At the time of their entry into service, all the petitioners possessed M.Tech degrees in professional courses

4. The petitioners contend that as per Clause 6.8.0 of the UGC Pay Regulations, 2018 [Annexure-23] and the State Government’s Notifications dated 27.12.2019 [Annexures 24 & 25], teachers possessing a Post-Graduate degree in a professional course such as M.Tech/LL.M are entitled to two non-compounded advance increments at the entry level. Despite several representations submitted by the petitioners, starting from the year 2018 onwards, the respondents have maintained silence and the benefits have not been extended to them.

5. When the case is called, both sides are present. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, in all fairness, submits that the subject matter of the present writ petition is squarely covered by a previous Judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 351 of 2020 (Sri Abhijit Debbarma & 4 Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors.) dated 29.01.2021. He further points out that the respondents in their counter-affidavit have not denied the right and entitlement of the petitioners and, as such, prays that the writ petition be allowed.

6. This Court is not in consonance with the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to the extent of issuing a direct Mandamus at this stage. It is observed that for the Court to maintain and issue a writ of mandamus, there must be an impugned order or a specific impugned action under challenge. In the present proceedings, the petitioners have primarily challenged the inaction of the respondents in deciding their pending representations.

7. Accordingly in view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners herein that, in the event the petitioners are entitled to the benefits claimed, it shall be open for them to make a formal claim before the respondents in the light of the judgment relied upon by them, i.e., the decision in W.P.(C) No. 351 of 2020 if applicable. On receipt of any such representation by the petitioners, the respondents shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In the event any such representation(s) is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be decided within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of such representation by the respondents from the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, with the above observation and direction, this present writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable and premature. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.