JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner substantially prayed for regularizing her services with effect from 10.08.2005, the date when respondent No.5 was regularized, instead of 01.12.2012 on which date she was regularized. 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Contingent Worker. According to the petitioner she was engaged in the year 1980 having qualification of Madhyamik pass and Diploma in Folk Dance and Visharad in Sangeet Natak Academy, etc. and she used to teach the students of the Department. The petitioner claimed that she and respondent No.5 were shown as Part Time Contingent Worker in Memo. dated 13.07.1988(Annexure-P/40 to the writ petition). She was shown in Sl. No.4 and respondent No.5 was shown in Sl. No.7. 4. By Memo. dated 26.03.2013(Annexure-P/44 to the writ petition), respondent No.5 was declared and engaged as a Daily Rated Worker Group-D[(for short, Group-D(DRW)] with effect from 10.08.2005, whereas, by that Memo. the petitioner was not declared as such as a Group-D(DRW). By Memo. dated 27.12.2012 (Annexure-P/46 to the writ petition) the petitioner and two others were declared and engaged as Group-D(DRW) with effect from 01.12.2012. Here rests the case of the petitioner that she has been discriminated. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for regularizing her but I find nothing to entertain that prayer of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Contingent Worker and now the Part Time Contingent Workers by the aforesaid Memorandum dated 26.03.2013 and 27.12.2012 declared and engaged as Group-D(DRW). By Memo. dated 27.12.2012, the petitioner and two others were declared as Group-D(DRW) with effect from 01.12.2012, whereas by subsequent Memo. dated 26.03.2013, 65(sixty five) Part Time Contingent Workers including respondent No.5 were declared and engaged as Group-D(DRW) with effect from 10.08.2005. This seems to be quite discriminatory. Memo. dated 13.07.1988(Annexure-P/40) shows that Milan Rani Das i.e. respondent No.5 and the petitioner, both were Part Time Contingent Workers for three hours daily. 7. The respondents by filing counter affidavit admitted that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1982. This seems to be quite discriminatory. Memo. dated 13.07.1988(Annexure-P/40) shows that Milan Rani Das i.e. respondent No.5 and the petitioner, both were Part Time Contingent Workers for three hours daily. 7. The respondents by filing counter affidavit admitted that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1982. I do not find any material as to when the respondent No.5 was engaged but it is an admitted position that respondent No.5 was also engaged as a Part Time Contingent Worker i.e. at par with the petitioner. So, while the service of the petitioner was declared and engaged as a Group-D (DRW) by Memo. dated 27.12.2012 with effect from 01.12.2012, how the similarly situated people, who were engaged and declared as Group-D(DRW) in the year 2013 were given retrospective effect from 10.08.2005. Since by Memo. dated 26.03.2013 respondent No.5 and 64(sixty four) others were declared and engaged as Group-D(DRW) with effect from 10.08.2005, the petitioner is also entitled to be declared and engaged as Group-D(DRW) with effect from the same date i.e. 10.08.2005. 8. Respondents are directed, accordingly, to declare and engage the petitioner also, within 90(ninety) days from today, as a Group-D(DRW) with effect from 10.08.2005. She will be entitled to all the benefits which were given to respondent No.5 and 64 others by Memo. dated 26.03.2013. 9. With the above direction the writ petition stands disposed of.