JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the respondents. 2. The matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself since it is submitted by Mr. Deb, leaned counsel for the petitioner that it is absolutely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 04.03.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Majumder appearing for the State-respondents submits that the case of the present petitioner cannot be said to be wholly covered by the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015. 4. I have meticulously gone through the petition, annexed documents, the counter affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents and the documents annexed thereto as well as the judgment referred by learned counsel, Mr. Deb in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015. 5. The petitioner claims to be engaged as a casual worker and it is submitted by Mr. Deb that he and the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 are similarly situated. I find several documents filed in this writ petition which clearly reveal that the present petitioner and the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 are similarly situated, specially from Annexure-P/6, i.e., letter of the Director of Higher Education to the Principal-in-charge of TIT, Narshingarh dated 16.10.2009, Annexure-P/7, i.e., letter of the Principal-in-charge of TIT addressed to the Director of Higher Education dated 19.10.2009, Annexure-P/10, i.e., Memo dated 29.03.2010 issued by the TIT, Narshingarh, Annexure-P/11, i.e., corrigendum dated 31.03.2010 issued by the TIT, Narshingarh, Annexure-P/15, i.e., a letter dated 03.09.2012 by the Principal of TIT, Narshingarh addressed to the Director of Higher Education and all those documents show that the petitioner of the present writ petition and the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 were similarly situated. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the State Government regarding regularisation of services of the casual workers, who have completed 10 years of continuous service, the petitioner is also entitled to be regularised in the service like that of the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the State Government regarding regularisation of services of the casual workers, who have completed 10 years of continuous service, the petitioner is also entitled to be regularised in the service like that of the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015. It is the further case of the petitioner that another Kamal Deb and Dipak Das, who were also similarly situated and were casual workers like that of the petitioners in the same status were regularized, whereas the petitioner of the present writ petition and the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 were not regularised and, therefore, the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 approached this Court and this Court directed the respondents to regularise them in accordance with Memo No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 and with reference to Memo No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure-P/18 to the writ petition). The petitioner since similarly situated, it is urged by learned counsel, Mr. Deb that he is also entitled to be regularised in the same terms and conditions. 7. The respondents contended that the case of Kamal Deb and Dipak Das and the case of the present petitioner were not similar. Kamal Deb and Dipak Das were not engaged by issuing any engagement letter. The petitioner of this writ petition and the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 were engaged otherwise. There is no specific statement in the counter affidavit to distinguish the engagement of the petitioner of this writ petition and that of the engagement of Kamal Deb and Dipak Das. 8. This Court in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 has already observed that the petitioners of that writ petition and Kamal Deb were similarly situated and that Kamal Deb though was regularised, the petitioners of that writ petition were not regularised and, therefore, the direction was issued. 9. In W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015, a copy of the judgment placed on record, in paras 17 to 22 the Court held thus: “17. From the rival contentions, the following questions fall for consideration viz. : (i) Whether the source of engagement as the casual workers of the petitioners and the regularised persons are different to stand out the necessary classification for purpose of denying of regularisation of the petitioners? From the rival contentions, the following questions fall for consideration viz. : (i) Whether the source of engagement as the casual workers of the petitioners and the regularised persons are different to stand out the necessary classification for purpose of denying of regularisation of the petitioners? (ii) Whether the petitioners are also eligible to be regularised under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, as amended from time to time and the memorandum dated 03.01.2014? 18. This court does not have any hesitation after scrutiny of the records to hold that the source of engagement of the petitioners and said Dipak Das is same and as such on that respect there cannot be any differentiation as made by the respondents. But that may not provide the necessary corollary to hold that the petitioners are entitled to be regularised under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 as amended from time to time or under the memorandum dated 03.01.2014. In this regard, this court is again persuaded to hold that for all purposes as it emanates from the records so produced by the Principal or Head of the office, Tripura Institute of Technology, formerly Polytechnic Institute and as those clearly establish that the petitioners and Dipak Das were working as the casual worker in the same source i.e. of the Polytechnic Institute now Tripura Institute of Technology having being engaged as the casual workers before 31.03.2003. They have completed 10(ten) years of service as required. The respondents did not label their engagements as illegal or against the constitutional scheme of the public employment. Their solitary ground for not regularising the petitioners is that they were working under the Community Polytechnic Scheme. It appears that the fund was provided for running the Community Polytechnic, but the casual workers were not solely working in the scheme and they have also working under the Tripura Institute of Technology, formerly Tripura Polytechnic Institute. So it appears from the communication dated 03.09.2012, Annexure-P/15 to the writ petition, where it has been categorically stated that: “So the cases of such employees of TIT Narsingarh considered may kindly be considered also along with others. All the above employees are hard working and essentially required for Tripura Institute of Technology.” 19. The benevolent scheme for regularisation of such casual workers cannot be frustrated by the technical approach of this nature, rather, it should be read liberally else there would be great injustice. All the above employees are hard working and essentially required for Tripura Institute of Technology.” 19. The benevolent scheme for regularisation of such casual workers cannot be frustrated by the technical approach of this nature, rather, it should be read liberally else there would be great injustice. Hence, it is necessary that the petitioners are considered for regularisation under the scheme as reflected by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 as stated. 20. It has clearly transpired that the petitioners have always been treated as the casual worker of Polytechnic Institute, now the Tripura Institute of Technology and their services were accordingly realised. Still they are so working. Even similarly circumstanced person, namely Dipak Das who has been regularised, was also the casual worker of the Community Polytechnic. Thus, the difference as had been made between Dipak Das and the petitioners is not based on intelligible differentia for purpose of relegating the mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners are entitled to be considered by the respondents for regularisation under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, as amended from time to time. 21. Having held so, the respondents are directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioners in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents) read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure-P18 to the writ petition) and such consideration shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from today, in supersession of the communication dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure-P/23 of the writ petition). 22. In the result the writ petition is allowed to be extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.” 10. In my considered opinion and in view of the documents and materials placed on record, the present petitioner and the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015 are absolutely similarly situated and so, the present petitioner is also entitled to the similar benefit as has been granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015. 11. The respondents are directed to consider the regularization of the petitioner in terms of Memo No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 read with Memo No. F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 03.01.2014(Annexure-P/18 to the with petition) and such consideration shall be made within a period of three months from today in supersession of the communication dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure-P/23 to the writ petition). 12. 11. The respondents are directed to consider the regularization of the petitioner in terms of Memo No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 read with Memo No. F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 03.01.2014(Annexure-P/18 to the with petition) and such consideration shall be made within a period of three months from today in supersession of the communication dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure-P/23 to the writ petition). 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent as stated above and stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.