JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who is now working as a Helper to Cook by virtue of the memorandum under No. F.(11)SEE/(NG)2012(L2) dated 17.07.2012, Annexure P/8 to the writ petition, has urged for the reliefs as reproduced hereunder:- “(c) Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the Respondents to treat the service of the petitioner as helper to cook under the respondents department w.e.f. 14.08.2012 i.e. the date on which the petitioner submitted her joining pursuant to the initial offer of appointment. Issue rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent to grant all service benefits viz. Seniority and other financial benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.08.1992. AND Issue rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the service of the petitioner shall not be regularised as Group-D (full time) at par with similarly situated employees.” 3. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the outset referred the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 delivered in W.P.(C) No.380 of 2002, the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner, where this Court has directed the respondents as follows: “Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join as Helper to the Cook in the place of posting i.e. Udaipur Girls H.S. School. If such contingency service of the petitioner is not required in that school, she may be suitably accommodated elsewhere as per the Govt. scheme.” 4. For purpose of having the backdrop of the controversy, it may be noted that the petitioner along with others were appointed as the Helper to Cook (Group-D) post under the School Education Department, Government of Tripura by the memorandum under No.F.1(127)DSE/91 dated 24.04.1992. But the petitioner did not receive the order of appointment and on 14.08.1992, she came to learn about the order of appointment and the subsequent posting order. But the petitioner did not receive the order of appointment and on 14.08.1992, she came to learn about the order of appointment and the subsequent posting order. Having seized of such information, she rushed to the place of posting and submitted her joining report, but the joining report was not accepted by the Headmistress and no action even was taken on her joining report. Subsequently, she made several representations but with no avail. By the letter dated 15.04.1996, issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, directed the Headmistress of Udaipur Girls H.S. School to inform the Directorate of School Education whether the petitioner had joined that post in pursuance to the posting order dated 05.06.1992. In response to the said letter dated 15.04.1996, the Headmistress of Udaipur Girls H.S. School, the respondent No.4 herein, by her letter dated 23.12.1999 had reported the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura that the petitioner had joined the said school by submitting a joining report dated 14.08.1992. Surprisingly, again by a letter dated 08.02.2000, the Deputy Director of School Education asked the Headmistress of the school regarding the joining of the petitioner and in response thereto, the Headmistress of the school by her letter dated 21.02.2000 had reported that the joining report was not accepted as the petitioner did not have the office copy of the appointment letter. In that circumstances, in the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.380 of 2002, the petitioner urged this Court to accept her joining report and to provide her all the benefits of service from her joining date i.e. 14.08.1992. The respondents had raised serious objection by stating that since the petitioner ‘did not join in time’ then she could not be accommodated. Another plea that had been raised by the State in resisting the reliefs prayed in that writ petition was that the said service was contractual in nature for a period of one year. So if someone failed to join or the joining report was not even accepted after one year, the contract of service be deemed to have expired. 5. In that background, this Court by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed the direction as reproduced hereinabove. So if someone failed to join or the joining report was not even accepted after one year, the contract of service be deemed to have expired. 5. In that background, this Court by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed the direction as reproduced hereinabove. By the memorandum dated 17.07.2012, AnnexureP/8 to the writ petition, the petitioner was given engagement as Part Time Worker (Helper to Cook) for 4(four) hours work a day in the Udaipur Girls H.S. School, Udaipur and the petitioner was asked to report to the duties by 17.08.2012 positively. The petitioner had reported accordingly. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get all the benefits in terms of the earlier appointment letter which she did not receive. From the direction of this Court, it unambiguously transpires that the direction is in two parts viz; (i) the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to join as Helper to the Cook in the place of posting i.e. Udaipur Girls H.S. School and (ii) if such contingency service of the petitioner is not required in that school, she may be suitably accommodated elsewhere as per the Govt. scheme. 6. By the order dated 04.11.2016, this Court had instructed to Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents that whether the petitioner can be made regular considering the service which she has already rendered as the similarly circumstanced person, namely Maya Rani Ghosh who was working in the same capacity by virtue of her letter of appointment dated 24.04.1992, has been made regular one year after her appointment. On instruction, Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. has confirmed that Maya Rani Ghosh has been made regular after one year of service against the vacancy available in the post of Cook. The respondents have instructed Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. that since the petitioner has been engaged as Part Time Worker for 4(four) hours a day, she cannot be made regular unless she had completed 10 (ten) years of service. 7. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply to the submission as made by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A., has submitted that the engagement of the petitioner as Helper to the Cook was made by the memorandum under No.F.(127)DSE/91 dated 24.04.1992, copy of which has been filed by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. by a list of documents. 7. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply to the submission as made by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A., has submitted that the engagement of the petitioner as Helper to the Cook was made by the memorandum under No.F.(127)DSE/91 dated 24.04.1992, copy of which has been filed by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. by a list of documents. As this Court has directed the respondents by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 to allow the petitioner join as the Helper to the Cook in the place of posting i.e. Udaipur Girls H.S. School, the petitioner has been allowed to join in the said school but in pursuance to the memorandum dated 17.07.2012, where the petitioner has been shown to have been engaged as a Part Time Worker (Helper to Cook) on monthly fixed wage of Rs. 2,821/- (Rupees Two thousand Eight hundred Twenty One) for 4(four) hours a day. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents have deviated from the direction given in the earlier writ petition. Thus, the memorandum dated 17.07.2012 is absolutely unsustainable as the petitioner is to be deemed to have joined in the said school in terms of the memorandum dated 24.04.1992. Having regard to that, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that for that reason, the petitioner is entitled to be treated at par with Maya Rani Ghosh, who was also engaged as the Helper to Cook with the similar terms and conditions by the equal memorandum dated 24.04.1992. In the said memorandum, the clause-2 provides as under: “2.CookcumMasalchi/Helper to Cook shall work for 4(four) hours in the morning and 4(Four) hours in the evening/night.” 8. The memorandum dated 24.04.1992 as issued in favour of Smt. Maya Rani Ghosh and the petitioner is exactly in the similar format and the said clause2 is available in both the engagement orders dated 24.04.1992. 9. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been engaged in compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 by the memorandum dated 17.07.2012. The petitioner has been engaged as the Part Time Worker (Helper to Cook) for 4(four) hours a day. Accordingly, she has reported to her duty without any demur. Now the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs which were not prayed at all in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner has been engaged as the Part Time Worker (Helper to Cook) for 4(four) hours a day. Accordingly, she has reported to her duty without any demur. Now the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs which were not prayed at all in the earlier writ petition. As such, such prayer is barred by the principles of constructive res-judicata provided under Rule 2, Order II of the CPC. Moreover, as per the new scheme of the State, the petitioner will be entitled to be engaged as DRW only after completion of 10 years of service as the part-time worker. 10. Having regard to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that if the stand taken by the respondents is accepted, the petitioner will have no chance to be regular in the service as the petitioner was engaged afresh on 17.07.2012 and if she had joined by 17.08.2012 and that day i.e. 17.08.2012 is based for purpose of as the date of joining, she would be entitled to be a DRW on completion of 10 years of service on 16.08.2022. Further, she will have to wait for another 10 years to be regular. From the affidavit submitted by the petitioner on 06.09.2013, it appears that she declared that she had completed on that day 50 years of service, meaning she has no future to be incorporated in the regular service, though the admitted position is that in her initial engagement, which was in the nature of DRW the clause2 of the said memorandum, it has been laid as condition of service that she had to work for 8(eight) hours a day in two working shifts, one for 4(four) hours in the morning and another for 4(four) hours in the evening and there is no dispute that in terms of the judgment dated 10.01.2012 if the petitioner is allowed to join in her place of posting i.e. Udaipur Girls H.S. School, it can without any hesitation be held that the petitioner has been allowed to join in terms of the memorandum dated 24.04.1992 compliance the direction of this Court, as stated. But the State being deviant from the said judgment dated 10.01.2012 has issued a fresh engagement letter engaging the petitioner as a Part Time Worker (Helper to Cook) to work for a 4(four) hours a day in the same place of posting. But the State being deviant from the said judgment dated 10.01.2012 has issued a fresh engagement letter engaging the petitioner as a Part Time Worker (Helper to Cook) to work for a 4(four) hours a day in the same place of posting. If the operative part of the judgment is simply read, there cannot be any ambiguity that the court was not in two minds so far its direction is concerned. This court has clearly stipulated that if there is the contingency at Udaipur Girls H.S School, the petitioner shall ‘be allowed’ to join as Helper to Cook. If that was not available meaning there was no contingency in the said place of posting, then the State was in lieu to accommodate the petitioner ‘elsewhere’ as per the Government scheme. Thus, the memorandum dated 17.07.2012 is interfered with. There was no necessity of issuing a fresh memorandum in compliance of the earlier judgment dated 10.01.2012, the petitioner was supposed to be allowed to join in terms of the memorandum dated 24.04.1992, copy of which has been filed by Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents, and that is the reason all the terms and conditions of the said memorandum dated 24.04.1992 should be applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner be treated as the full time contingent worker from the day when she was allowed to join by the respondents. 11. Another question that has fallen for consideration is that whether the petitioner can be granted the benefits from 14.08.1992, the day on which the petitioner submitted her joining report or not. It appears that the said letter of engagement was for a year with effect from the date of joining and as such, the petitioner cannot get continuity in the service from 14.08.1993, on which day, the tenure of 1(one) year expires, unless by an express order, the said engagement was renewed by the competent authority. Therefore, this Court cannot give the benefit of service w.e.f. 14.08.1992 to the petitioner. The assumption of duties by the petitioner on 17.08.2012 has been accepted by the competent authority by the memorandum under No.F.(11)SE/E(NG)2012(L2) dated 24.08.2012. This memorandum has been referred to for the purpose of confirmation of date of joining, not for any other purpose. Therefore, this Court cannot give the benefit of service w.e.f. 14.08.1992 to the petitioner. The assumption of duties by the petitioner on 17.08.2012 has been accepted by the competent authority by the memorandum under No.F.(11)SE/E(NG)2012(L2) dated 24.08.2012. This memorandum has been referred to for the purpose of confirmation of date of joining, not for any other purpose. Since the petitioner’s joining has to be treated as a Full Time Contingent worker, the State-respondents are directed to consider her regularisation in terms of the extant policy. The service records of the petitioner be modified in terms of this judgment and order by the competent authority. This Court cannot accept the proposition that the petitioner can be treated at par with the similarly circumstanced person, namely Maya Rani Ghosh for the reasons as stated above. For purpose of clarification, it may be mentioned that before expiry of the contractual tenure Smt. Maya Rani Ghosh was regularised and therefore, there was no reason to renew her contractual agreement. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.380 of 2002 after 10 years of issuance of the said memorandum dated 24.04.1992. The court cannot take back the hand of the clock to retrieve that time. By efflux, the entire circumstance has changed. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.