JUDGMENT & ORDER : By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing and/or setting aside the memo dated 15.12.2012 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition) under which the petitioner was treated as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012 and further prayed for directing the respondents to regularize his services as a DRW w.e.f. March, 2007 and to give him all service benefits. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. N.C. Paul for the petitioner and learned Addl. GA, Ms. A.S. Lodh for the State respondents. 3. It is the admitted position that the petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Worker under the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs of the Government of Tripura, w.e.f. 15.02.1983 and without any break he continued his job under the Department. 4. According to the petitioner, he was treated as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. February, 1998. To justify his claim he referred to a contingent bill of February, 1998 marked as Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, wherein the name of the petitioner appears in Sl. No. 4 and his name was shown as Daily Rated Worker (DRW). The petitioner also referred to another such bill dated September, 1998 wherein also, he was shown as Daily Rated Worker (DRW). In his second rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner further enclosed a copy of the memo dated 24.09.1998 whereunder the Director of the Department distributed duty during Puja Holidays and the petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No. 19 and he was shown as Daily Rated Worker (DRW). It is submitted by Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner that those official bills and office memo are enough to prove that in the year 1998, the petitioner was treated as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) and not as a part time worker. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per memo dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition) issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura, a daily rated worker serving for 10 years is entitled to be regularized. Since, the petitioner was shown as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) in the year 1998 he is entitled to be regularized as a regular employee as per that memo dated 21.01.2009 w.e.f. February, 2007. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents by issuing the impugned memo dated 15.12.2012 treated the petitioner as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents by issuing the impugned memo dated 15.12.2012 treated the petitioner as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. It is submitted that the said memo is contrary to the earlier records of the Department, i.e. exhibit P2, P3 and P6/1 and so the said memo dated 15.12.2012 cannot sustain. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the department by memo dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition) decided and declared 65 Nos. of part time workers as Daily Rated Group-“D” workers w.e.f. 10.08.2005 whereas by memo dated 15.12.2012 the petitioner was declared as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. Mr. Pal submitted that it is a clear discrimination meted out to the petitioner that though he was serving as part time worker w.e.f. 15.02.1983, whereas by memo dated 15.12.2012 he was given the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012 and by memo dated 26.03.2013, 65 Nos. of part time workers engaged prior to 31.03.2003 were given the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 10.08.2005. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for interference and direction as per prayer made in the writ petition. 7. Mere mention of the word “Daily Rated Worker” as against the name of the petitioner in some bills and office order does not confer the status of daily rated worker of the petitioner. He was engaged as a part time worker. Until and unless by a decision of the department he was declared as a daily rated worker, he cannot claim it as of right. Learned Addl. GA, Ms. A.S. Lodh referred to Annexure-R/1 and R/2 of the counter affidavit filed on 15.07.2016 and submitted that in those bills the petitioner was shown as part time worker. 8. It is submitted by Ms. Lodh that the petitioner has been working as part time worker from 1983 and that does not mean that he was entitled to be treated as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW). He was treated as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) by a conscious decision of the department on 15.12.2012 conferring the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. Before that, the petitioner was never treated as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW). 9. He was treated as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) by a conscious decision of the department on 15.12.2012 conferring the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. Before that, the petitioner was never treated as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW). 9. After carefully going through the pleadings and documents annexed by both side, I find that in some contingent bills raised in the department of the year 1998, as against the name of the petitioner, he was shown as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW). Similarly, in some of the bills of the year 2004 and 2005 he was shown as part time worker. There is no official decision to show that in the year 1998 the petitioner was declared as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW). Simply because as against the name of the petitioner in some bills and in one office order the petitioner was mentioned as Daily Rated Worker (DRW), he cannot be treated as such a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) with effect from the date of such bill or office order. 10. As I find, by memo dated 15.12.2012 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition) the department had taken a decision declaring the petitioner as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. By memo dated 26.03.2013, the department again declared 65 part time workers as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) who were engaged prior to 31.03.2003. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged long before 31.03.2003. There is no justification from the side of the respondents that while 65 others were declared as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 10.08.2005, why the petitioner should not be declared as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) as such with effect from the same date. This issue was raised in para 8 of the writ petition by the petitioner and we may reproduce here the averments made in para 8, which read as follows: “8. That, on 26-03-2013 a Memorandum was issued by the Director of Youth Affairs & Sports, Tripura regarding Declaration of Engagement of Part Time Workers as Daily Rated Workers (DRW). The aforesaid memorandum issued in pursuance of the Finance Department Govt. of Tripura Memorandum No.F.34(6)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 11-01-2013 to the effect that the services of 65 Nos Part time Workers etc. who had been engaged prior to 31-03-2003 are declared as D.R.W. “Group-D” w.e.f. 10-08-2005. Copy of Memorandum dated 26-03-2013 issued by the Director Youth Affairs & Sports, Tripura. The aforesaid memorandum issued in pursuance of the Finance Department Govt. of Tripura Memorandum No.F.34(6)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 11-01-2013 to the effect that the services of 65 Nos Part time Workers etc. who had been engaged prior to 31-03-2003 are declared as D.R.W. “Group-D” w.e.f. 10-08-2005. Copy of Memorandum dated 26-03-2013 issued by the Director Youth Affairs & Sports, Tripura. Regarding Declaration of Engagement of Part Time Workers as Daily Rated Workers (DRW) is annexed and marked as Annexure-P/5.” 12. In reply to para 8 of the writ petition, the respondents in their counter affidavit in para 10A stated thus: “10.A. That the contentions/averments made in para 7 to 10 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that it is a matter of records and anything contrary thereto is denied and disputed by the respondents.” 13. It is, therefore, evident that the respondents have nothing to say about the allegations made by the petitioner that he was wrongly given the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 01.12.2012 whereas other similarly situated people who were also engaged before 31.03.2003 were given the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 10.08.2005. 14. In my considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) Group “D” w.e.f. 10.08.2005 which was given to other 65 part time workers of the same department. There is nothing to show that any person who was declared as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) has been regularized in service, in the meantime. Therefore, no direction can be given to the State respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as a Group-D worker. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to get the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 10.08.2005. The respondents are directed to give the status of Daily Rated Worker (DRW) to the petitioner w.e.f. 10.08.2005 and to give him all service benefits as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) from the date on which 65 other part time workers of the department were given, by memo dated 26.03.2013. 16. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.