JUDGMENT Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Tripura University in this batch of writ petitions. 2. All the writ petitions have been taken up and heard together since common questions of law and facts are involved. 3. All the petitioners of this batch of writ petitions were engaged on contractual basis. They have been discharging their duties till now under a specific contract. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have been discharging their duties for last 10 years, the Court should pass a direction upon the respondents to frame a policy or scheme for regularisation of the petitioners. Her alternative submission is that the service of the petitioners should be regularised for rendering 10 years of service on contractual basis. 4. I have considered the submissions of Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 5. Firstly, the Court has no power to direct the Government or any statutory authority to frame any scheme or policy for regularisation of their employees. Whether a policy or scheme for regularisation or for any other purpose should be made or not, it is absolutely within the domain of the Government and as such, I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel that Court can direct the Government or the statutory authority, like the respondents here-in to frame particular policy or scheme for regularisation of its employees. 6. Secondly, dealing with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners claiming regularisation of the petitioners in view of their continued service for the last 10 years also cannot be entertained because contractual employees have no right to claim such regularisation. 7. Lastly, Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners claim equal pay for equal work for the reason that they are holding sanctioned posts under the respondents and they are at least entitled to get the lowest pay scale in the lowest grade of Group- C or Group-D at entry level pay scale in accordance with law, in view of the fact that the petitioners have been discharging their duties against the sanctioned posts. In my opinion, their claim in this regard may be considered by the respondents. 8. However, Mr. In my opinion, their claim in this regard may be considered by the respondents. 8. However, Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Tripura University has submitted that the petitioners are not holding the sanctioned posts, and even there was no selection process and their engagements were made in violation of the established norms of employment. However, I have left this matter upon the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for granting the lowest pay scale in the lowest grade of Group-C and Group-D at entry level pay scale in accordance with law applicable in the university, if they are holding the sanctioned post. It is apprised to this Court by Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Tripura University that recently the respondents had notified advertisement for filling up the posts the petitioners are holding at present and the petitioners have participated in the selection process in response to the said advertisement. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this batch of writ petitions stands disposed.