JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred by the Respondents in W.P. (C) No. 56 of 2008 being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2009 in the writ petition supra. 2. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State-Appellants as well as Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 3. As agreed to by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the instant Writ Appeal is taken up for admission hearing at this stage. 4. The brief facts are needed to be discussed for disposal of the instant appeal are as follows: The Respondents, who were discharging the function of Fishery Officers as appointed to the Post of Fishery Officer on various dates, filed the aforesaid writ petition for a direction upon the Appellants herein, who were the Respondents in the writ petition, for providing the Petitioners with the cadre service benefits after due consideration of the report of the recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission established by the Appellants and consequent upon Memorandum, dated 18.07.1988 along with other prayers. The aforesaid writ petition was contested by the Appellant herein by way of filing counter affidavit. 5. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment and Order wherein the learned Single Judge taking note of Para 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the State-Appellants, Respondents therein, directed the State Appellants to take up the follow up action pursuant to the recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission and also Office Memorandum dated 18.07.1988 for accepting the said 3rd Pay Commission report by constituting Cadre service for Fishery Department within a period of 6 months from the date of receiving the judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, while questioning the judgment and Order of learned Single Judge as impugned, would contend that whether a service would be constituted for a particular department or not that remain with the employer, Court has no power to direct the employer Appellants, who are Respondents in the writ petition to take follow up action pursuant to the recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission for constitution of cadre service in the Fishery Department. 7. 7. He further contended that whether the Government would accept the report of the Pay Commission or not that is upon the Government, being the report of the Pay Commission is advisory in nature. 8. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned Counsel while countering the contention of Mr. Chakraborty submits that the learned Single Judge while allowing the prayer of Respondents herein, writ Petitioners therein, passed the judgment wholly on the basis of condition made in Para 11 of the counter affidavit wherein it is categorically mentioned that introduction of cadre service for Fishery Field Service, Tripura Fishery Higher Fisheries Service is under consideration of the Government. He again contended that in the counter affidavit, the State-Appellant nowhere stated that they did not accept the recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission for introduction of cadre service for Fishery Field Service, Tripura Higher Fishery Service. Therefore, there was no other option before the learned Single Judge except to accept the contention in para 11 of counter and to pass the order impugned in the appeal. 9. Mr. Sinha further submits that the State Appellants have no authority to behave with the Respondents/writ Petitioners in a different manner then the employees of other departments for whom separate cadre sanction has already provided. 10. He again contended that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is well reasoned order and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Before dealing with the submission of the learned Counsel of the parties, it would be proper for us to peruse the Para 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the Appellants/Respondents in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Para 11 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below: 11. That in regard to the statements and/or contentions and/or averments made in paragraph-4 of the writ petition, it is stated by the answering Respondents that in regards introduction of Cadre Service is an executive function and it is ordinarily undertaken by an expert body like the Pay Commission etc. The task of evolution which is generally left to the expert bodies like Pay Commission etc. Thereafter the State Government fixes the pay of a post by exercising its wisdom considering the financial position of the State. It is fact that the Petitioners are having degree in Fishery Science i.e. B.F.Sc. on the other hand some of the Fishery Officers are having degree in B. Sc. Thereafter the State Government fixes the pay of a post by exercising its wisdom considering the financial position of the State. It is fact that the Petitioners are having degree in Fishery Science i.e. B.F.Sc. on the other hand some of the Fishery Officers are having degree in B. Sc. (with Zoology) and passed 1 (one) year certificate course in Fishery. All of them were offered the scale of Rs.2000-4410/- up to 30-09-1998 and they accepted it and on receipt of their consent they were appointed to the post of Fishery Officer as per Recruitment Rules for the post of Fishery Officer. However, introduction of Cadre Service for Fishery field service/Tripura higher Fisheries service is under consideration of the Government. 12. Upon going to the Para 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition/counter affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that the State Government has almost accepted the prayer of the Respondents, who were writ Petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition as not only the State Government is intending to consider the introduction of cadre service for Fishery Field Service or Tripura Higher Fishery Service rather while considering the matter they also took note of the fact inter alia that the task of evolution which is generally left to the expert bodies like Pay Commission etc and the State Government fixes the pay of a post by exercising its wisdom considering the financial position of the State and also admitted that the Respondents are having degree in Fishery Science i.e. B.F.Sc. and some other officers should having degree in B. Sc (with Zoology) and also passed the certificate course in Fishery. Therefore, according to us, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error while allowing the prayer of the Petitioner. We are of the further opinion that once the State-Appellants expressed their views that they are considering the matter relating to introduction of cadre service, they cannot resile from the said subsequently, when the Court passed order on the basis of their contention before the Court through its counter affidavit. 13. We are of the further opinion that once the State-Appellants expressed their views that they are considering the matter relating to introduction of cadre service, they cannot resile from the said subsequently, when the Court passed order on the basis of their contention before the Court through its counter affidavit. 13. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge directed the State-Respondents to take up the follow up action pursuant to the report of the 3rd Pay Commission and Office Memorandum issued by the Appellants on 18.07.1998 for accepting the 3rd Pay Commission report by constituting cadre service for Fishery Department within a period of 6 months from the date of receiving of the Judgment, which does not require any interference by us. 14. In view of the above, the writ appeal fails being devoid of merit. 15. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.