ORDER : S.B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. 3. The appellant State of Tripura and two others have brought in challenge the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Review No. 82 of 1983 by which the High Court has directed the appellant State of Tripura to give postgraduate pay scale on notional basis to the respondent Shibapada Bhowmik as well as other classical teachers from the year 1981 and to give them arrears of pay in the said pay scale revised from 1988 i.e. with effect from a later date. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant State of Tripura is that the respondent was having a title of Kavya Tirtha granted by the Pakistan Sanskrit and Pali Education Board, Dhacca in the year 1963. He joined the education service of the appellant State in the year 1964 but as he was a matriculate, the pay scale available to him was of matriculate employees. Subsequently, he obtained graduation degree in the year 1972 and there is no dispute that he has been paid the pay scale of graduate teacher. 4. The short question is whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant State to make available the postgraduate pay scale to the respondent on the basis of Kavya Tirtha title issued by the Dhacca Board which was treated by the Central Government by its notification dated 5-12-1981 to be equivalent to the Tirtha title issued by the Bangiya Sanskrit Sikshya Parishad at Calcutta and read in the light of the earlier communication of the Central Government dated 23-1-1964 by which it was directed on the advice of the Sanskrit Board that the title Tirtha granted by the Bangiya Sanskrit Sikshya Parishad, Calcutta can be treated to be equivalent to Master's degree in Sanskrit language. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that this recommendatory equivalence was never accepted by the appellant State and therefore, the revised pay scale offered for postgraduate teachers by the appellant State as per decision contained in memorandum dated 23-4-1982 would not automatically apply in case of the respondent and persons similarly situated like him. In support of this contention, strong reliance is placed on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. ... In support of this contention, strong reliance is placed on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. ... of 1995 [@ out of SLPs (C) Nos. 5707-09 of 1991] decided on 13-9-1995. In the said decision it has been held by this Court in connection with the employees of the appellant State itself that even if the State had granted equivalence of a Master's degree to those employees who were having Hindi qualification obtained from the Akhil Bharatiya Hindi Parishad and the Bharatiya Hindi Parangat that would not automatically entitle the employees concerned to get higher pay scales available to employees having postgraduate degrees. Such equivalence would be confined only to recruitment. The aforesaid decision squarely gets attracted to the facts of the present case. 5. We find that in the present case, the appellant is still on a stronger footing. The reason is obvious. Though the Central Government might have issued memorandum on 23-1-1964 recommending treating of Tirtha qualification obtained from the Bangiya Sanskrit Sikshya Parishad, Calcutta as equivalent to Master's degree, it was merely recommendatory in nature, as subsequently clarified by the Central Government by its communication dated 4-1-1997. It is to be noted that when the first memorandum was issued on 23-1-1964 the appellant was a Union Territory and it became an independent State on 21-1-1972. Thus, by the time the clarification was issued by the Central Government on 4-1-1977 it is obvious that the recommendation of the Central Government was only for consideration of the appellant State. The appellant State has not recognised Kavya Tirtha qualification obtained from the Pakistan Sanskrit and Pali Education Board as equivalent to postgraduate qualification of its employees. In fact, there is no dispute on this aspect as in the counter-affidavit it has been fairly stated in para 6 that it is a fact that the Government of Tripura did not recognise the title "Kavya Tirtha" or "Tirtha" as being equivalent to MA degree although it was so recognised by the Government of India in the year 1964 when Tripura was a Union Territory. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to sustain the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned judgment that because the Central Government had so recommended in the years 1964 and 1981, the respondent would be entitled to get the pay scale of a postgraduate Sanskrit Teacher notionally from 1981 and actual arrears from 1988 and that persons similarly situated like him would also be entitled to such benefit. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Civil Review No. 82 of 1983 are set aside. 6. We may state that pending this proceeding at SLP stage all throughout there was stay of operation of the High Court orders. Therefore, the question of recovery of any arrears from the respondent does not arise for consideration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.