JUDGMENT AND ORDER : By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to regularize his services under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura as the Dental Surgeon [Ex-cadre] with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts are mostly admitted. The petitioner in response to the memorandum No.F.3(5-953)-FDDOM/HSFWS/2009 dated 20.10.2009 participated in the interview for selection in the post of Dental Surgeon (contract-basis) under the State Health and Family Welfare Society and was given offer of appointment for the said post on contract basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months from the date of joining on a fixed pay of Rs.15,000/- per month. It has been provided in the said Memorandum dated 26.10.2009, Annexure-I to the writ petition, that the appointment may likely to be continued till the Mission period, based on performance. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed by the memorandum No.F.3(5-953)-FWPM/SHFWS/2009 dated 27.11.2009, Annexure-II to the writ petition. The petitioner was thus appointed and posted to discharge the duties of Dental Surgeon. 3. The petitioner joined in the said post on 30.11.2009 and his joining report was accepted by the order No.F.3(5-953)-FWPM /SHFWS/2009 dated 01.02.2010. On appraisal of performance the said appointment was extended from time to time by various orders and the petitioner by now has completed about 9 (nine) years of his service as a Dental Surgeon under the National Rural Health Mission. 4. It is to be noted that State Health & Family Welfare Society, an agency, has created to implement the National Rural Health Mission and the petitioner has been appointed by the said society in order to achieve the object. 5. From the various memoranda as enclosed with the writ petition, it is apparent that from time to time the petitioner was transferred and posted to different places for discharging his duties as the Dental Surgeon. But the petitioner service has not been ‘regularized’ and the petitioner is still under the contractual appointment. The petitioner has served the respondents uninterruptedly to the best of his ability and sincerity. 6. But the petitioner service has not been ‘regularized’ and the petitioner is still under the contractual appointment. The petitioner has served the respondents uninterruptedly to the best of his ability and sincerity. 6. When the petitioner had been legitimately expecting that on consideration of his sincere and efficient performance he would be regularized, he was attracted by the Advertisement No.06/2016 published in the local newspapers by the Tripura Public Service Commission, inviting applications for selecting candidates against 34 posts of Dental Surgeon, Ex-cadre, Group-A, Gazetted under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600/- - 39,100/- (Pay Band-4) with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. The petitioner participated in the said selection process but he was unsuccessful. The petitioner has accepted that outcome without demur. 7. According to the petitioner in some other states, the medical officers who were working under the National Rural Health Mission have been regularized by way of absorption in the permanent posts under the State Government. But in the State of Tripura, the respondent did not take such initiative or action. Strangely, the petitioner has referred to the scheme of appointment on the Fixed Pay basis by keeping the Regular Pay-Scale in abeyance for 5 (five) years and on completion of the said freezing period the regular scale is released. 8. The petitioner has further averred that the persons who are appointed under the said policy of 5 years’ freezing of the regular scale, rendered by them during that period of freezing is counted toward the length of their service for purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. But the petitioner has nowhere claimed that he was appointed on fixed-pay basis by keeping in the regular pay-scale in abeyance. Hence, the said scheme cannot have any relevance in the present context. 9. The petitioner has invested volume of averments in the writ petition on the subsequent memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/05/Part-I dated 15.11.2012 whereby the respondent, Finance Department, has clarified certain aspect of the appointment on fixed-pay basis keeping the regular scale in abeyance. 10. Even the reference has been made to the National Rural Health Mission frame-work and in respect of delivery of service under that Mission but even not those averments are remotely connected to the context as projected by the petitioner. 10. Even the reference has been made to the National Rural Health Mission frame-work and in respect of delivery of service under that Mission but even not those averments are remotely connected to the context as projected by the petitioner. The petitioner has primarily claimed the relief of regularization on the ground of his long service as the Dental Surgeon under the National Rural Health Mission. The respondents have filed the reply and denied the knowledge of regularization of such categories of personal working under the National Rural Health Mission by the Government of Punjab and Rajasthan very categorically. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, the respondent No.4, in his supply has specifically stated that : “The petitioner is not working under the Government. He is an employee of the Society for which the memo as contained in Annexure 23 is not at applicable, revealed from the language employed in the said Memo. He is not employed as fixed Pay employee by the Government keeping regular post in abeyance. There is no functional requirement of permanent regular post in the NHM.” At this juncture, it may be noted that the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has been recently christened as National Health Mission (NHM). The respondent No.4 has also asserted in his reply that the scheme of regularization of Group-C and Group-D employees of Government of Tripura is not extended for the employees under NHM. There is no scheme operating in the State of Tripura to regularize the contractual personnel in the regular establishment under the Government of Tripura. Nowhere it has been represented by the State Health and Family Welfare Society, Tripura that the contractual employees will be regularized. It has been clearly canvassed to the contrary. According to the respondent No.4, filling up of regular post by the State is altogether a issue and it can be done under the relevant rules for the same purpose. 11. Even though the respondent No.5, Tripura Public Service Commission has filed their reply but their averments will be of no utility in the context of regularization. But the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 by filing their separate reply have denied that they have any obligation to regularize the petitioner or the personnel who have been appointed on tenure basis. 11. Even though the respondent No.5, Tripura Public Service Commission has filed their reply but their averments will be of no utility in the context of regularization. But the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 by filing their separate reply have denied that they have any obligation to regularize the petitioner or the personnel who have been appointed on tenure basis. Those respondents have asserted in their reply as under : “He has joined the contractual services keeping his eyes open and now he cannot press for regularization in contractual service. He was not selected for any regular post in the Government Department as such he cannot lay any such claim as such. There is no provision in the NHM for creation of any regular posts whatsoever.” No rejoinder against the said statement, as underlined, has been filed by the petitioner. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have further asserted that the petitioner is not an employee of the Government of Tripura in the Family Welfare Department and as such he cannot advance any plea or grievance against the State. The posts under the National Health Mission are created as a policy measure for short duration or till the National Health Mission is operational. Since the petitioner has been given continuation in his tenure appointment, it does not confer upon the petitioner any right to claim regularization. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have further averred that the letter as referred by the petitioner for conversion of temporary posts under the Government of India into permanent ones was received by the Government of Tripura, but the said letter does not have any bearing for conversion of the contractual posts created for NHM into permanent posts under NHM or under the Government of Tripura. Health Service is no doubt as a State subject and as such any advisory issued by the Central Government has no binding effect in the administration of health services. 12. Those respondents have further submitted that the conditions of service of the petitioner is wholly governed by the contract that has been entered between the petitioner and the Health and Family Welfare Society. For purpose of reference, the terms and conditions of such appointment as embodied in the Memorandum dated 26.10.2009 are extracted hereunder: “2. 12. Those respondents have further submitted that the conditions of service of the petitioner is wholly governed by the contract that has been entered between the petitioner and the Health and Family Welfare Society. For purpose of reference, the terms and conditions of such appointment as embodied in the Memorandum dated 26.10.2009 are extracted hereunder: “2. The terms and conditions of the appointment are as follows: i. The appointment is purely on contract basis for a period of 11 (Eleven) months from the date of acceptance the post. ii. This will not confer any right to the candidate for regular appointment under the Society or under the Govt. of Tripura. iii. No N.O.C. will be issued within one year of engagement. 3. The appointment carries liability to serve anywhere in the State. 4. 12(Twelve) days Casual leave will be entitled in a calendar year. 5. TA/DA on tour on official duty will be entitled as per Rules applicable to the State Govt. employees. 6. Service conduct rules applicable for State Govt. employees will also be applicable to hi. 7. If any information furnished by the candidate is found to have been willfully suppressed, he will be liable for removal from the contractual service. 8. No TA/DA will be allowed for joining the post. 9. As per above mentioned terms & conditions, if Dr. Debamalya Majumder accepts the offer he will submit his acceptance report to the Mission Director, NRHM, Tripura within 10(ten) days from the date of issue of the Memorandum along with duly filled in Attestation Form. If no response is received within the stipulated period, the offer shall be treated as cancelled.” The respondent No.6, Union of India has filed their reply and asserted that only contractual ‘Human Resource’ (HR) is allowed to be engaged under the National Health Mission and the petitioner is bound by the conditions of the contract that of employment in as much as he has entered in the service on his own volition fully knowing the condition that the appointment is for a specified period and terminable on expiry of the laid tenure. Finally, they have stated that the writ petition is grossly misconceived and based on irrelevant facts and having foundation to claim reliefs as sought. 13. Finally, they have stated that the writ petition is grossly misconceived and based on irrelevant facts and having foundation to claim reliefs as sought. 13. By the order dated 22.06.2018 passed in this writ petition, this court may proceed if the matter had directed the respondents to file affidavit stating what steps the Government would propose to take in the reference to Dental Surgeons who were appointed after the process of selection and rendered 9 (nine) years of satisfactory service. 14. By filing the supplementary affidavit on 10.10.2018, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have asserted that as per the notification dated 28.02.2015, there are total 81 posts of Dental Surgeon (ex-cadre), but only 34 Dental Surgeons are in position. But posts those are available under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura and none can claim any right to regularization against those posts for serving in the State Health and Family Welfare Society. No specific proposal in respect of regularization has been made in the said supplementary affidavit in terms of the order dated 22.06.2018. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in consideration of long service as rendered, the petitioner has right to be regularized in the post of Dental Surgeon (Ex-cadre). Mr. Deb, learned counsel has referred the Advertisement No.06/2016 issued by Tripura Public Service Commission for appointment of 34 permanent posts of Dental Surgeon, Ex-cadre Group-A under Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel 34 posts as advertised by the Tripura Public Service Commission are from 81 posts of Dental Surgeons (ex-cadre) it is apparent, therefore, that there are vacancies of Dental Surgeons, Ex-cadre Group-A, Gazetted under Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. On supposing that vacancies of Dental Surgeons (Ex-cadre) are still available, the petitioner has urged for mandamus or direction upon the respondents to regularize his service as Dental Surgeon (Ex-cadre) in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600/-39,100/- with Grade pay of Rs.5,400/-, but it is a stark reality that there is no scheme for regularization nor is there any rule enabling the petitioner or alike to claim regularization. 15. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has referred a few decisions of the apex court. 15. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has referred a few decisions of the apex court. In Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 where, based on the observation made in State of Karnataka, Vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 4 SCC 1 , it has been further observed that the irregular appointments of duly qualified persons who have worked for 10 (ten) years or more can be considered on merits and steps may be taken as a onetime measure to regularize them. Further reliance has been placed on State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Kamal Prasad and Others reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223 where again on relying para 53 of Umadevi (supra) it has been observed that there is material distinction between filling up vacant posts by direct recruitment on the one hand and “regularization of existing employees in their posts by applying the decision of Umadevi (supra) case who have served more than 10 (ten) years in the post with the appellants without the intervention of any interim orders granted by any court.” 16. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further shown this court from State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 that the apex court has laid down the law in respect of Pay-parity and claim of Pay-parity by the temporary employees. In Jagjit Singh (supra) it has been observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification. For equal pay, the employees concerned, with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal should be of the same quality and sensitivity. The law has been further laid succinctly as under: “42.6. The placement for placement in a regular pay scale the claimant has to be a regular appointee the claimant should have been selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment an employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claimed to be placed in the regular pay scale. The parity in pay under the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the referral post were placed in the same pay scale. The parity in pay under the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the referral post were placed in the same pay scale. The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable only when it is shown that the incumbent of the subject post and the referral posts discharge similar duties and responsibilities.” 17. Based on the said decision, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not getting even the minimum of the regular pay scale as the Fixed-Pay. On query Mr. Deb, learned counsel, has failed to show any averment in this regard in the entire writ petition. To repel the submission made by Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for regularization, Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A., Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel have argued that the petitioner has been appointed by a contract and as such, his appointment is entirely governed by the said conditions of the contract. It has been clearly stipulated that the appointment will not confer any right upon the employee, so appointed, by the above mode. It has been averred as under : “From the Memorandum dated 26.10.2009 that the appointment is a purely on contract basis for a period of 11 months and such appointment will not confer any right to the candidate for regular appointment under the society or under the Government of Tripura as such the claim of the petitioner for regularizing him under the regular establishment under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura as the Dental Surgeon (Ex-cadre) is wholly misconceived.” Having appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties this court is of the considered opinion that (1) the petitioner was appointed purely on contract basis for a definite tenure on fixed pay basis and (2) and no right has been conferred or has accrued in favour of the petitioner for regular appointment either under the State Health and Family Welfare Society or under the Government of Tripura, even though the petitioner has served about 9 (nine) years uninterruptedly and to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. 18. In the result this writ petition is dismissed being bereft of merit. 18. In the result this writ petition is dismissed being bereft of merit. However, before parting with the records, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are directed to examine whether a scheme for regularization of Dental Surgeons who have rendered long service under the National Health Mission can be adopted by the State Government to tap the service of the experienced dental surgeons who are working under the contractual appointment or to give security to service of the petitioner. If such scheme is formulated or framed by the State for purpose of regularizing the services of the contractual Dental Surgeons employees treating them as a special category, the petitioner shall be considered under such scheme for regularization, notwithstanding the dismissals. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 shall take a decision whether such scheme as a onetime measure can be adopted by the State of Tripura or not. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the day when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the Secretary & Commissioner to the Government of Tripura, Department of Health Services. There shall be no order as to costs.