JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Despite due notice from this Court on the respondents No. 3 to 11, there is no representation. 2. The facts are mostly undisputed in this writ petition in terms of the advertisement dated 16.05.2007 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] the petitioner applied for the post of Machine Operator in Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited [the TFDPC Ltd., in short]. By the said advertisement, application were invited from the persons having qualification on the trades from the recognized ITI passed viz Mechanic/Carpenters/Electrician and the candidates must be between 18-37 years, however 5 years relaxation for SC/ST candidates was declared. It has been clearly stated that the initial engagement will be purely on contract basis of monthly wages of Rs. 2,145/- for one year. The candidates were asked to submit their applications with all relevant testimonies to the Managing Director, TFDPC Ltd., on or before 28.05.2007. 3. The petitioner submitted such application and according to him with all testimonies. The petitioner got selected and he was engaged by the Memorandum under No. F.4-113/Gen/TFDPC-06/11,269-72 dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The petitioner was asked to produce the following certificates and documents by the said memorandum : (i) Certificates of Educational Qualification along with attested copy. (ii) Certificate of age along with attested copy. (iii) Certificate belonging to Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe from the D.M. & Collectors along with attested copy. (iv) Employment Registration Card. (v) Permanent Residential certificate from S.D.O. along with attestation copy. As per the direction, the petitioner joined the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner was offered for appointment as the Machine Operator by the memorandum under No. F.4-113/Gen/TFDPC-06/5409-14 dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in the regular establishment. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner, in terms of the said offer dated 24.10.2009, was appointed as the Machine Operator by the Memorandum under No. F.4-113/Gen/TFDPC-06/6809-16 dated 09.12.2009 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) on fixed pay basis as per the government policy. In the said memorandum dated 09.12.2009, it has been clearly subscribed that in response to the offer of appointment, the petitioner has accepted the offer and ‘submitted all necessary documents as per requirement’. 5. In the said memorandum dated 09.12.2009, it has been clearly subscribed that in response to the offer of appointment, the petitioner has accepted the offer and ‘submitted all necessary documents as per requirement’. 5. The petitioner continues to work without any blemish and to the satisfaction of the respondents No. 1-2. From the memorandum under No. F.4-113/Gen/TFDPC-06/7439-63 dated 31.12.2009 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), it would be apparent that the petitioner joined in the said post on 11.12.2009 along with other 10 persons in the post of the Machine Operator. 6. On 08.04.2015, by the Communication under No. F.2-192/Estt/TFDPC-15/169-70 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), the petitioner was informed by the Managing Director TFDPC Ltd., that one Swapan Barman and 17 others filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C). No. 325 of 2011 for quashing or setting aside the advertisement dated 25.03.2011. In that writ petition, there was a reference to the recruitment of the petitioner. On that context, the regular pay scale of the petitioner was not released by the respondents No. 1 and 2. But the said writ petition being WP(C). No. 325 of 2011 was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 07.07.2015. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that by the memorandum dated 31.08.2015, similarly circumstanced persons who were selected and appointed along with the petitioner were brought the regular pay scale of Rs. 5,700 - 24,000/-, GP-2,100/-[PB-II] on completion of their 5 years of service and accordingly, the regular pay scale was released to them w.e.f. 11.12.2014. There is no amount of dispute that the petitioner had completed his 5 years of service on 11.12.2014. 8. Similarly by another memorandum dated under No. F.2-176/Estt/TFDPC-2012/9081-86 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), the regular pay scale of another Machine Operator, namely, Anirban Rudra was released w.e.f. 12.12.2014 with one day deferment by declaring the day on 15.03.2011 as non duty. 9. According to the petitioner he does fulfill all the requirements of educational and other qualifications for recruitment to the post of Machine Operator. The relevant schedule of the Recruitment Rules has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-13. 10. 9. According to the petitioner he does fulfill all the requirements of educational and other qualifications for recruitment to the post of Machine Operator. The relevant schedule of the Recruitment Rules has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-13. 10. It would be apparent from the said Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules for the Machine Operator in TFDPC Ltd. that the person would be eligible for the direct recruitment if he has the qualification of Madhyamik passed from a recognized School or Institute of equivalent, ITI passed in Fitter, Electrical, Electronics, Welder, Carpentry, Diesel Mechanic trade or equivalent with 2 years industrial experience or ITI passed/6 months Community Development Program Certificate course in Electrical or Electronics or equivalent with 7 years Industrial Experience out of which at least 5 years in wood processing industries. 11. The petitioner has passed the programme from the Community Polytechnic in Lathe Operation after attending the course from April 1997 to September 1997. The petitioner has also worked in a wood industry namely, M/S Laxmi Saw Mill, for the period from 01.01.2002– 31.12.2005 as part time worker. 12. That apart, the petitioner has passed the Madhyamik Examination. According to Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that by not releasing the regular pay scale to the petitioner, the respondents have acted arbitrarily as at the time of issuing the appointment letter by the memorandum dated 09.12.2009 they had categorically admitted that the petitioner submitted all necessary documents. As such, there cannot be any reason to deprive the petitioner by withholding the regular scale of pay on his completion of 5 years service as the fixed pay employee. 13. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further stated that 6 months’ Community Development Program Certificate with 7 years industrial experience, out of which at least 5 years in wood processing industry was with the petitioner and he submitted the testimonials in this regard. 14. Today Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has also produced a photo copy of the certificate issued by the said M/S Laxmi Saw Mill Ltd., wherefrom it is gathered that the petitioner had been a part time worker in the said industrial concern for 5 years. The petitioner had submitted that he had also 2 years experience in other sectors. 15. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has also produced a photo copy of the certificate issued by the said M/S Laxmi Saw Mill Ltd., wherefrom it is gathered that the petitioner had been a part time worker in the said industrial concern for 5 years. The petitioner had submitted that he had also 2 years experience in other sectors. 15. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has categorically stated that the petitioner did not submit that the certificate dated 04.07.2007 at least that is not available in his personal file. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel had produced this file before this Court and on scrutiny, the said certificate was also found. 16. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel that is the reason why the petitioner was not favoured with release of the regular pay scale. He has referred to the Para-14 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1-2 where those respondents have taken a stand as under: “The petitioner had submitted that he is trained in Lathe Operator from Polytechnic Institute with duration of 6 months course. Said course is not equivalent to the ITI passed in any trade. The entry of the petitioner in the said post of Machine Operator is, therefore, an illegal one even if he was favoured with the appointment.” 17. In this regard one certificate under No. F.2-176/Estt/TFDPC-12/7637 dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure-R/1 to the affidavit-in-opposition counter-affidavit) filed by the respondents No. 1-2 has been relied by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel. But nowhere in the certificate it has been stated that the certificate is not equivalent to the ITI certificate. 18. It has been only stated in that certificate that the programme is sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. There is no comparison or result of equivalence test in the said certificate dated 02.12.2015. 19. It transpires that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age limit of recruitment. He was now 43 years on 08.11.2016. As such, he has lost the opportunity of getting any fresh employment. 20. Having regard to the comment made in the memorandum dated 09.12.2007 that the petitioner submitted all the necessary documents as per requirement, this Court is not inclined to observe that the petitioner did not submit the documents as required for the recruitment. As such, he has lost the opportunity of getting any fresh employment. 20. Having regard to the comment made in the memorandum dated 09.12.2007 that the petitioner submitted all the necessary documents as per requirement, this Court is not inclined to observe that the petitioner did not submit the documents as required for the recruitment. However, for purpose of record, the petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy of the certificate dated 04.07.2007 as issued by the M/S Laxmi Saw Mill Ltd., supported by an affidavit to the respondent No. 2 within a period of 1 month from today. 21. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed, in the circumstances, to release the regular scale of the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2014 when the similarly situated persons got their regular scale of pay. The arrear as would accrue from 01.12.2014 till the date of actual payment, shall be paid within a period of 3 months from today. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.