JUDGMENT S.N. PRASAD, J. - Before dealing with the case on merit, it is necessary to pass appropriate order on Misc. Case No. 283 of 2017 which has been filed for recall of order dtd. 1.9.2017 whereby the opposite party no. 1 was directed to appear in person due to non-appearance of counsel representing him on that day. Reason shown is that the learned counsel representing opposite party no.1 since has gone to hospital to see ailing Advocate of this Court, as such he could not reach this Court on that day. He orally submits that counter affidavit is on record, the matter may be disposed of finally. 2. This Court after considering the reason shown in the application and also considering the fact that opposite party no.1 was directed to appear in person to assist the Court and since the learned counsel is present to argue the case on merit, as such the writ petition is being decided finally on merit. 3. This case is for issuance of two fold direction upon the opposite parties, i.e. (i) to extend the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- in favour of the petitioner with effect from the date of his joining as Senior Technical (Photography) till 01.01.1988; and (ii) to create the promotional post of Senior Technician Grade-B, such as Scientific Assistant Grade-B and Grade-A in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been appointed in the light of the requisition made by the Chief Executive Officer, Orissa Remote Sensing Application Centre (in short ORSAC), addressed to the Employment Officer, State Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar on 7.11.1986 (Annexure-11 annexed to the rejoinder affidavit) wherein the name of suitable candidates for attending the interview on scheduled date for selection has been requisitioned for four posts including the post on which the petitioner has been selected, i.e. Technician (Sr. Grade) Photography. The said post carries the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085, the petitioner having been found to be eligible and qualified in the selection process, has been appointed on 16.1.1987 vide office order No. 1689 by appointing him temporarily to officiate in the post of Senior Technician (photography) in the scale of pay of Rs. 840-16-856-18-928-EB-22-1140-25-1240/- with dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible to the employees of the ORSAC from time to time. 840-16-856-18-928-EB-22-1140-25-1240/- with dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible to the employees of the ORSAC from time to time. The petitioner has accepted the offer of appointment and discharged his duties, however, made a claim vide his representation to extend the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- as per the requisition made by the Chief Executive to the Employment Officer as referred above, but his grievance has not been meted out, hence he is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-11 would go to show that the petitioner is entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- but in highly arbitrary and illegal manner the petitioner has been given lesser pay scale than that of the pay scale which is attached to the post. He submits that when the petitioner has joined his service he has no bargaining power but immediately thereafter he has made objection before the authorities to extend the pay scale of the post. He further submits that the authorities cannot suo motu fix the pay scale contrary to the decision taken by the authorities wherein a particular pay scale has been fixed to the post. 6. So far as the second prayer is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that he is holding the post of Senior Technician (Photography) having no promotional avenue while in the other sectors the Senior Technicians having the same qualification have got themselves promoted to the higher post, as such appropriate direction may be issued to the opposite parties to create hierarchy of the post so that he may be considered for the post. 7. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1 and 4 has submitted on the strength of counter affidavit filed inter alia wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was initially appointed temporarily to officiate as Senior Technician (Photography) in the pay scale of Rs. 840-16-856-856-18-928-EB-20-1008-EB-22-1140-25-1240/- with dearness allowance. The grievance of the petitioner regarding higher pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- with effect from the date of his joining has been sent to the Government for its approval but till date pay scale has not been approved, as such there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the authorities in this regard. 8. 840-16-856-856-18-928-EB-20-1008-EB-22-1140-25-1240/- with dearness allowance. The grievance of the petitioner regarding higher pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- with effect from the date of his joining has been sent to the Government for its approval but till date pay scale has not been approved, as such there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the authorities in this regard. 8. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the statement made in the counter affidavit itself will be falsified from the decision of the authorities which they have taken on 31.12.1988 in the office order no. 4180 dtd. 31.12.1988 issued by the Chief Executive, ORSAC (Annexure-4) wherein the petitioner has been given the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- till 31.3.1989 and thereafter also it has been allowed to be given time to time which does suggest that it is under the exclusive domain of the opposite party nos. 1 and 4 to extend the pay scale of Rs. 1050/—2085/- but now they are taking the plead of getting approval from the Government. He submits that since the opposite parties are autonomous body, they are competent enough to take their own decision without getting any approval from the State Government. He further submits in reply that the authorities, in not granting the said pay scale is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and there is no reason to get any approval from the State Government. So far as prayer no.2, it has been stated that staffing pattern and creation of post are policy matters which are to be considered by the governing body of the ORSAC, the opposite party nos. 1 and 4 and since there is no hierarchy of the post and the petitioner at the time of getting appointment was knowing about the fact very well, as such now he cannot take the ground that he is being discriminated or he is arbitrarily been treated. He submits that this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not issue any direction upon the opposite parties to create the post since it is the matter of policy decision which is under the exclusive domain of the authorities. 9. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. He submits that this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not issue any direction upon the opposite parties to create the post since it is the matter of policy decision which is under the exclusive domain of the authorities. 9. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the petitioner has been appointed in pursuance to the requisition having been issued by the Chief Executive, ORSAC addressed to the Employment Officer, State Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar dtd. 7.11.1986 whereby and where under the suitable candidates have been requisitioned to attend the interview on the date fixed, one of the post is Technician (Sr. Grade) Photography carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/-. The petitioner has made application along with others, in the selection process being found to be successful, has been engaged on 16.1.1987 and allowed to officiate in the post of Sr. Technician (Photography) by appointing him temporarily in the scale of pay of Rs. 840-16-856-18-928-EB-22-1140-25-1240/- with dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible to the employees of the ORSAC from time to time. The petitioner when objected to the lower pay scale by making representation before the authorities regarding his entitlement by quoting the reference of the requisition of the Chief Executive, ORSAC addressed to the Employment Officer dtd. 7.11.1986 wherein the pay scale attached to the post in question is Rs. 1050-2085/-, the authorities have extended the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- till up to 31.1.1989, thereafter he has been continued to be paid the same. At the moment the petitioner has been deprived from the higher pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- from 16.1.1987, i.e. the date of appointment till 31.12.1988, the day when the office order has been passed extending the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/-, accordingly he claims arrears of differential of salary for the interregnum period. 10. The stand taken by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that the matter has been sent before the Government for its approval but the approval has not yet been received, as such the higher pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- is not being extended to the petitioner. 10. The stand taken by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that the matter has been sent before the Government for its approval but the approval has not yet been received, as such the higher pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- is not being extended to the petitioner. The stand taken by the authorities in the counter affidavit is not said to be satisfactory for the reason that there is no question of obtaining any approval from the state Government reason being that the opposite party nos. 1 and 4 being the autonomous body is competent enough to take its own decision regarding the pay scale, according they have taken decision and issued requisition to the Employment Officer requisitioning attendance of suitable candidates to participate in the interview, one of the post is Technician (Sr. Grade) Photography, the post in question here in this case, the pay scale attached to this post is Rs. 1050-2085/-, as such there is no requirement to obtain approval from the Government. Moreover the petitioner has already been extended the said pay scale from 31.1.1988 and thereafter he is continued to be paid on the basis of the pay scale attached to the said post. It is settled that the day when the post is created, a pay scale is attached to the post and the day when any requisition is being made to fulfill the post and in case any appointment is being made to the said post, the successful candidate, in case that principle has not been followed, rather the petitioner has been given the lower pay scale of Rs. 840-16-856-18-928-EB-20-1008-EB-22-1140-25-1240/- with dearness allowance which action of the authorities cannot be approved. 11. In view of the reasoning mentioned herein above the petitioner is held to be entitled to get arrears of salary from the date of his joining, i.e. 16.1.1987 till 31.12.1988. Accordingly opposite party nos. 1 and 4 are directed to calculate the differential of arrears of salary for this period and disburse the same in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. Accordingly opposite party nos. 1 and 4 are directed to calculate the differential of arrears of salary for this period and disburse the same in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. So far as the prayer No.2 is concerned, according to the considered view of this Court creation of post is within the exclusive domain of the authority and for creating new post, no mandamus can be issued by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has given instances of other departments that the post in question is carrying hierarchy of posts but this has not been done here and on the basis of this direction has been sought for from this Court for creation of hierarchy of the posts so that his case for promotion may be considered, but giving example of other departments confers no right upon the petitioner warranting this Court to issue direction to the opposite parties to create posts since it pertains to the policy decision depending upon the exigency and financial implications which is to be decided by the authority. In view thereof the second prayer is not fit to be considered by this Court, as such the same is rejected. In the result the writ petition is partly allowed as indicated herein above. The Misc. Case is also disposed of. Petition disposed of.