JUDGMENT Biswanath Somadder, CJ. - This writ appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 8th June, 2015, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 245 of 2014. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (Dr. Tapan Kumar Chakrabarty) while observing, inter alia, as follows:- “12. From the submission of Mr. K. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that there is no dispute that the petitioner had already been re-designated/appointed as Associate Professor and it is also very clear from the said order of Manipur University dated 20- 08-2005 that the petitioner had already been promoted to the post of Associate Professor in the Manipur University w.e.f 07- 02-2002 at the time of appointment of the petitioner as Reader in the NEHU vide order dated 06-02-2006. For the sake of repetition, it is reiterated that the pay of the petitioner as Associate Professor in the Manipur University had already been protected by NEHU vide order dated 07-03-2006 which has been quoted in extenso in the aforesaid para…...” 2. A plain reading of the above quoted paragraph from the impugned judgment and order reveals that the entire case of the writ petitioner is based on order/orders passed by Manipur University, especially an order dated 20th August, 2005, whereby, the writ petitioner is alleged to have been promoted to the post of Associate Professor of Manipur University, w.e.f. 7th February, 2002, at the time of his appointment as a Reader in North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) vide order dated 6th February, 2006. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to observe further in the said paragraph as follows:- “This Court is of the considered view that the last pay of the petitioner as Associate Professor in the Manipur University shall be last pay of the petitioner after the benefit on implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission was granted to the petitioner by the Manipur University while he was Associate Professor in the Manipur University w.e.f. 01-01-2006 vide the said order dated 02- 11-2010 of the Manipur University”. 3. 3. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe as follows:- “This Court is of the further view that the stand taken by the University in the said paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the affidavitin- opposition have no force in the given case inasmuch as NEHU had already protected the pay of the petitioner as Associate Professor in Manipur University and last pay of the petitioner as Associate Professor in Manipur University would be the last pay of the petitioner as Associate Professor fixed by the Manipur University w.e.f. 01-01-2006 while the petitioner was the Associate Professor of the Manipur University”. 4. The cause title of the writ petition reveals that the writ petitioner never impleaded Manipur University as a respondent in the writ proceeding, although he has relied on order/orders passed by Manipur University to build his case before the learned Single Judge against the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU). In our view, the learned Single Judge’s judgment and order does not take into consideration this vital aspect of the matter. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party (in this case, Manipur University). It is Manipur University whose stand was clearly required to be spelt out before the learned Single Judge after its impleadment as a respondent in the writ proceeding. However, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order in favour of the writ petitioner (being the respondent before us) without impleading Manipur University. 5. While sitting in an Intra-Mandamus appeal jurisdiction, we can proceed to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party alone. However, purely in the interest of justice, we refrain from doing so and instead remit the matter before the learned Single Judge upon setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 8th June, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 245 of 2014, with a direction that the writ petition should be heard afresh, after impleading Manipur University as a respondent in the writ proceeding. 6. 6. The cause title of the writ petition shall be amended by the Advocate-on- Record for the writ petitioner by adding Manipur University as a respondent in terms of this order within a period of four weeks from date and a copy of the amended writ petition shall be served upon the newly added respondent, namely, Manipur University, within a fortnight therefrom. The Manipur University shall file its affidavit clearly spelling out its stand before the learned Single Judge within four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of the amended writ petition from the Advocate-on-Record for the writ petitioner. The writ petition shall appear before the learned Single Judge, having appropriate determination to hear out this matter, immediately thereafter. While hearing the matter afresh, in terms of our order, the learned Single Judge shall not be influenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment and order dated 8th June, 2015. 7. The writ appeal No. 22 of 2015, stands allowed accordingly.