ARINDAM LODH,J. - (1.)The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the petitioner by the writ petition against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in connection with WP(C) No.37 of 2016 titled as Sri Abhijit Ray v. The State of Tripura and Others whereby and whereunder, the learned judge has denied the pay scale of the petitioner as he claimed in his writ petition.
(2.)In the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for following reliefs:
"In the premises whereof, it is most humbly submitted that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to:

(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for transmitting the records, lying with the respondents, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned Offer of Appointment dtd. 10/6/2012 (Annexure-P4 supra),whereby the petitioner has been granted the lesser pay scale of Rs.9570.0030500/- with Grade pay of Rs.3500.00 (corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450.00225-11500-250-13000/), instead of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7,800.00275-10,000-300-15,100/-, corresponding to the revised pay scale of Rs.13,575.0037,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.3700.00;

I) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/ or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for mandating/ directing the respondents, to fix the pay of the petitioner, in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7800.00275-10,000-300-15,100/-, corresponding to the revised pay scale of Rs.13,575.0037,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.3700.00, instead of the pay scale of Rs.9570.0030500/- with Grade pay of Rs.3500.00( corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450.00225-11500-250-13,000/), grant him the arrears thereof, and further grant the benefit of Leave, as admissible to him, with effect from the date of his joining (14/11/1990) to the post of Company Secretary as a fixed pay employee;

II) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;

III) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule Absolute in terms of i,ii, above;

IV) Costs of an incidental to this proceeding;

V) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deed fit and proper;"

(3.)Background facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed under respondents No. 2 and 3 on adhoc basis in the post of Assistant Company Secretary, but without following the established selection norms. In that situation, respondents no. 2 and 3 being the Corporation had framed a draft recruitment rule. In its 91st Board meeting on 28/5/2009 (Annexure- P6 to the writ petition) following relevant resolution was taken:
"Resolution No.3: Approval of the Draft Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Company Secretary.

The Board resolved to accept the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Company Secretary for decision of the government with an amendment of "2(two) years of working experience" in lieu of "5 (five) years of working experience"- against item no.7 of the proposed Recruitment Rules."

;