JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged before this court for directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to grant him the regular scale of pay of Rs.5700-24000/- [Pay Band 2] with Grade Pay of Rs.2100/- with effect from 11.12.2014 on which date the petitioner had competed 5 years of the requisite service on fixed pay basis inasmuch as the similarly circumstanced persons have been given the said benefit. 3. There is no dispute that in terms of the advertisement dated 16.05.2007, the petitioner was appointed as the Machine Operator on a fixed monthly wage of Rs.2645/- by the memorandum dated 01.12.2008 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition]. There is no dispute that after continuous service, the petitioner and others were similarly engaged on contractual basis. They were appointed as the Machine Operators on fixed pay basis against the regular post by keeping the regular pay scale for a period of five years. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has completed the requisite five years of service during which period the regular pay scale had been kept in abeyance. On 10.12.2014, the persons who were appointed on the fixed pay basis as the Machine Operator keeping the regular pay scale in abeyance for five years were favoured by release of the regular pay scale for their completion of five years of service on the fixed pay basis. But in the case of the petitioner, that did not happen on the pretext that the petitioner does not conform to the qualification prescribed for the Machine Operator. 4. From the Recruitment Rules for the Machine Operator under the Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Limited [Annexure-16 to the writ petition] it transpires that the minimum educational qualification, as prescribed, is Madhyamik passed from recognized School/Institute or equivalent along with ITI pass in Fitter, Electrical, electronics, welder, carpentry, diesel mechanic trade or equivalent with 2 years industrial experience or ITI Passed/6 months Community Development Programme or the certificate course in Electrical or Electronics or equivalent with 7 years Industrial experience, out of which at least 5 years in wood processing industries. 5. Even though Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had the qualification for such appointment. 5. Even though Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had the qualification for such appointment. But this court is not satisfied that the petitioner had confirmed to the requirement of the rule, inasmuch as the petitioner did not produce any ITI passed certificate in any of the trades or equivalent. Only he had two years’ industrial experience. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner had a certificate of attendance of participating 6 weeks training programme at Advance Woodworking Training Center in Bangalore on Fundamentals of Wood Working, Basic Mechanical Processing and Advanced Mechanical Processing. That apart, he has experience of working with TFDC Limited i.e. the respondent No.1 continuously for two years as a casual worker from 2002-03. In support of that, the certificate issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, NER [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] has been submitted. Even though there is no dispute that the petitioner has passed the Madhyamik examination but strictly going by the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner does not conform to the technical qualification as provided. 6. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has thus contended that since the petitioner did not conform to the basic qualification or the technical qualification as provided in the Recruitment Rules, his regular pay scale has not been released. However, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel has fairly submitted that when the petitioner was engaged on the fixed pay basis the said RRs did not come into force and as such, the petitioner and others were engaged on the basis of an executive instruction. The said executive instruction is not available before this court. The respondents have filed their comprehensive counter-affidavit. As the petitioner has completed 5 years of service against the regular post, he cannot be denied the regular scale. 7. Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel has relied on a decision of this court in Biprajit Ghosh vs. Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited & Others [judgment and order dated 06.12.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.820 of 2016] where almost in a similar circumstances the respondents were directed to release the regular pay scale to the petitioner. 8. 7. Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel has relied on a decision of this court in Biprajit Ghosh vs. Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited & Others [judgment and order dated 06.12.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.820 of 2016] where almost in a similar circumstances the respondents were directed to release the regular pay scale to the petitioner. 8. Having read the materials placed before this court by the petitioner and the respondents, this court is of the view that since there was no relevant rules and the petitioner was appointed keeping the regular scale in abeyance, he is entitled to get the benefit of the regular scale on completion of five years of his service. The petitioner has completed that tenure on 10.12.2014. Hence, his regular pay scale i.e. Rs.5700-24000/- [Pay Band 2] with Grade Pay of Rs.2100/- shall be released forthwith with effect from 11.12.2014. The arrears of the pay shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months of the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondent No.2. 9. Having observed thus, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel for onward transmission.