JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. On 31.08.2015 Ms. A.S. Lodh, leaned Addl. Government Advocate sought accommodation from this court to take instruction in respect of the Memorandum dated 11.05.2016, which was produced by Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. For reference, the entire text of the said memorandum is reproduced hereunder : “Government of Tripura, Health & Family Welfare Department No.F.3(2356)PLAN/DHS/2016/3944/7514(VIII) May, 11th 2016 In pursuance of the concurrence vide U.O. No.103/FIN(G)/2016 dated 03.05.2016 of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, the undersigned is directed to order that the casual workers who are having qualification Madhyamik passed and above are treating as Casual Worker (Gr-C) and entitled to existing wage rate of DRW (Gr-C). Those Casual Workers, who are not Madhyamik passed are treated as Casual Worker (Gr-D) and entitled to existing wage rate of DRW (Gr-D). This will take immediate effect. Sd/- illegible Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura” 3. From perusal of the said Memorandum dated 11.05.2016 nobody would be left in quandary that it clearly stipulates a policy whereby the Casual Workers who are having qualification of Madhyamik passed and above shall be treated as the Casual Worker (Group-C) and will be entitled to the existing wage rate of DRW (Group-C). 4. Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted today that the process has started whether the Casual Workers having the educational qualification of Madhyamik passed or above, shall be treated as Casual Worker (Group-C). This instruction is entirely contrary to the memorandum dated 11.05.2016 as extracted above. 5. This court is therefore, unable to accept that position, inasmuch as the Government of Tripura, represented by the competent authority, has passed the said memorandum, which carries substantive force. The prayer as advanced in this writ petition by the petitioner herein, namely Sri Babul Acherjee, is as follows : “(d) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be treated as DRW Group-C, effecting from their appointments as DRW Gr.D, with all consequential service benefits.” 6. The petitioner was treated by the order No.F.2(9Misc)MSESTTIII/2005, dated 07.12.2012 as the DRW (Group-D) despite his qualification of Madhyamik passed. The petitioner was treated by the order No.F.2(9Misc)MSESTTIII/2005, dated 07.12.2012 as the DRW (Group-D) despite his qualification of Madhyamik passed. In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the policy as declared by the memorandum dated 11.05.2016. The respondents are therefore directed to declare the status of the petitioner as the DRW (Group-C) in terms of the memorandum dated 11.05.2016 forthwith and by any rate not later than 30(thirty) days from today. If for any action of the respondents, the petitioner is aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach this court. 7. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.