JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has produced in terms of the order dated 29.08.2016 some records including the attendance register of the petitioner as the part-time worker. While producing the records, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has clearly stated that the attendance register has been introduced sometime in December 2004 and prior to that, the casual workers (part-time) used to sign in the vouchers for receiving their wages. The respondents have also produced some vouchers and the acquittance forms for this purpose. 3. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has unfolded the petitioner's case by stating that from the records of the respondents it would eminently transpire that the petitioner was engaged as the daily rated worker (sweeper) on 19.04.1996 at Tulasikhar R.D. Block. Since then the petitioner has been discharging her duties and responsibilities to the satisfaction of the authorities and as such, her services were allowed to be continued. 4. By the memorandum bearing F.10(22)FIN(G)/DRW/2004/2165 dated 09.04.2004 the Finance Department gave concurrence to the engagement of the petitioner. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has clearly indicated that the engagement prior to that, did not have any formal concurrence from the Finance Department. He has further asserted that the petitioner was discharging 8 (eight) hours duty in a day and on completion of ten years of service she was entitled to be regularized under the scheme adopted by the Government of Tripura for regularization of the casual worker/DRW working for more than ten years and such scheme was modified lastly on 21.01.2009 by the memorandum under No. F.10(2)FIN(G)/2008(Part), Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is wholly covered by the same memorandum dated 21.01.2009 as she has completed ten years of service on 18.04.2006. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized but she was not regularized. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that from the communication dated 07.12.2005 Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, it would be apparent that the petitioner was working as the DRW since 1996. The said communication dated 07.12.2005 has been issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura District. 6. Mr. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that from the communication dated 07.12.2005 Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, it would be apparent that the petitioner was working as the DRW since 1996. The said communication dated 07.12.2005 has been issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura District. 6. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has placed his reliance on another document issued by the under Secretary , Government of Tripura, R.D. Department, Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition, where it has been shown that the petitioner was working as the DRW since 19.04.1996. But Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that those communications unfortunately do not reflect the correct position about the petitioner. She has further submitted that the respondents in the counter affidavit has asserted in the Para5 as follows : "5. That, sans unnecessary details it is to be stated here that the petitioner was engaged as a contingent worker on 19/04/1996 as a sweeper. She became DRW (Daily Rated Worker) on 17/09/2015 vide memo dated F. 34(6)Fin(G)/2012.(A Copy of the memo dated 17/09/2015 is annexed here and marked as Annexure-R/1)" On scanning of the counter affidavit and as pointed out by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel it also transpires that the respondents have asserted as under : "It is further to be stated here that as per the list (Annexure-P/1 of the Writ petition) it shows that the petitioner was discharging duties for 08 hours a day which is in the list as on 01/12/2012 and the petitioner became DRW vide memo dated 17/09/2015. (A copy of the list of 01/12/2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/3)." 7. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the list annexed with the Annexure P/1 only shows that the petitioner started working for 8 (eight) hours a day with effect from 01.12.2012. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has further contended that when an initiative was taken by the government to include 1,209 names in the original list for purpose of regularization, the petitioner’s name was not included, even though the said memorandum was issued on 12.10.2004, AnnexureR/2 to the counter affidavit. 8. According to Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. that in the Para-5 of the counter-affidavit, it has been clearly stated by the respondents that a person who is engaged as a sweeper cannot work more than two hours a day. 8. According to Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. that in the Para-5 of the counter-affidavit, it has been clearly stated by the respondents that a person who is engaged as a sweeper cannot work more than two hours a day. In that event, the petitioner can only be treated as a part-time worker. The duty hours mentioned by the petitioner is not based on fact. By the memorandum dated 12.10.2004 as has been issued by the Finance Department and in terms of which names of 1,209 different categories of workers engaged in many departments without Finance Department concurrence, it was reflected that those persons were considered for inclusion in the original list for purpose of regularization. But in that list the petitioner’s name does not appear. On scrutiny of the said list annexed with the memorandum dated 11.10.2004, it has emerged that the petitioners name is very much in that list at Page 25 under ID reference No. 805 and it has been observed therein that the petitioner has been discharging duties for 8 (eight) hours since 19.04.1996 and she has the qualification of Class-VIII passed. Thus, the contention of the respondents is contrary to the records as produced by them. 9. Having observed thus, this court is of the view that the petitioner is covered by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009. This court further finds that the said entry is similar to the entry made in the list prepared by the District Magistrate and Collector, Khowai District, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition. In the said list of the District Magistrate, it has been shown that the petitioner has been discharging 8 (eight) hours duty since 19.04.1996. 10. What has emerged from the records is very clear that the petitioners case is covered by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009, Annexure5 to the writ petition and as such, the petitioner’s service is liable to be regularized in terms of the said memorandum and all the benefits are liable to be released in her favour within a period of three months from the day when a copy of this order shall be furnished to the respondents, in terms of the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009 or as per rules. It is ordered accordingly. This petition, in the result, stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Records produced by Ms. A.S. Lodh, Ld. Addl. It is ordered accordingly. This petition, in the result, stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Records produced by Ms. A.S. Lodh, Ld. Addl. G.A. are returned.