JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged before this court to regularize the petitioner with effect from 15.04.1988, as the petitioner had completed on that day 10(ten) years of service as DRW. 3. Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents in violation of their own policy as reflected in the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.09.2009 [Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition] has denied the petitioner the benefit of the regularization. 4. Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from the communication dated 12.09.2005 [Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition], it would be apparent that the petitioner was engaged on 15.04.1988 and the Finance Department gave concurrence to such appointment on 11.08.2004. From the memorandum dated 16.08.2007 [Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition] it would be apparent that the petitioner was working as the caretaker in Kanchanpur English Medium School on a daily wage of Rs.90/- per day. But from the communication dated 31.08.2007 [Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition], it evinces that the petitioner had been receiving Rs.77.60/- per day. But in the said memorandum it has been also noted that till 31.08.2003 the petitioner had worked on the basis of the informal order. 5. Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of the court to another communication dated 04.10.2010 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition] wherein the petitioner has been shown as the DRW and her date of joining has been shown as 15.11.1988. Even though similarly circumstanced persons were regularized by the respondents, petitioner’s case was not considered. 6. Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that on the basis of the communication dated 04.10.2010 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition], the petitioner’s status cannot be determined. The petitioner was not a casual or DRW as claimed by the petitioner at any point of time. He has further raised another jurisprudential objection that the writ petition has been filed after the petitioner is superannuated on 01.01.2015. On superannuation, the petitioner’s engagement is severed with effect from 01.01.2015 and this fact is not disputed by the petitioner also. The petitioner was not a casual or DRW as claimed by the petitioner at any point of time. He has further raised another jurisprudential objection that the writ petition has been filed after the petitioner is superannuated on 01.01.2015. On superannuation, the petitioner’s engagement is severed with effect from 01.01.2015 and this fact is not disputed by the petitioner also. In para-9 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents, it has been asserted as under: “That in reply to the averments and or contentions made in paragraph No.4 of the Writ petition it is submitted that the inspector of Schools Kanchanpur furnished information in respect of 8(eight) persons for regularization of their service. It is further denied that the petitioner was ever engaged as D.R.W. with the concurrence of the Finance Department. It is submitted that the Memo No.10(22)-FIN(G)/DRW/2004 dated 11.08.2004 as mentioned by the Inspector of Schools in his letter dated 12.09.2005 as a concurrence of the Finance Department is not actually a concurrence of the Finance Department for engagement of D.R.W. In the said Memorandum dated 11.08.2004 the Finance Department requested to all Treasury Officers/Sub-Treasury Officers for making payment of wages regularly to the irregularly engaged DRW/Part-Time/Contingent/Casual/Fixed Pay etc. workers. If the petitioner is appointed as care taker with the concurrence of the Finance Department then petitioner may be directed to place the said appointment letter.” 7. On perusal of the said Finance Department memorandum dated 11.08.2004 [Annexure-R/1 to their counter-affidavit], it transpires that what has been averred by the petitioner in this regard, is substantially correct. Now, the only issue that falls for consideration whether this court can come to an inference that the petitioner was working as the DRW with or without concurrence of the Finance Department and whether she has completed 10(ten) years of service in terms of the Government policy? 8. It cannot be denied from the records so produced by the petitioner that an Officer of the status of Inspector of Schools has certified that the petitioner had been working as the DRW and her date of engagement has been shown to be 15.04.1988 in that certificate. In the entire affidavit-in-opposition, the said statement has not been disputed by the respondents. In the entire affidavit-in-opposition, the said statement has not been disputed by the respondents. The memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 provides that Government has taken a policy decision to regularize services of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers who have completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008 and it has been further provided that for such regularization, the requirement of age and qualification so far the persons working in the Group-D are concerned shall be relaxed. However, it has been categorically stated that the regularization shall take effect from 01.07.2008. 9. There cannot be any amount of doubt that the petitioner was working with the respondents since 15.04.1988 as it has evinced from the communication dated 12.09.2005 [Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition] the list of the persons who had been working as the DRW/Contingent/Part-time Workers/Fixed Pay etc. That list was sent to the Director of School Education for purpose of regularization. It is true that the documentation in respect of this category of workers are not very accurate nor is managed properly. However, from the communication dated 04.10.2010 the status of the petitioner can be ascertained. In the said communication dated 04.10.2010 the petitioner has been shown to have been working as the DRW since 15.11.1988. Thus, it can be safely said that on 31.03.2008, the petitioner had completed 10(ten) years of service to come within the zone of consideration in terms of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. 10. In the affidavit, the respondents have not categorically stated what status of the petitioner was having. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated by the respondents as follows: “It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Care Taker verbally.” It is an affirmation. Nowhere the respondents have stated that the petitioner was a Part-time Worker and for that reason, she could not come within the ambit of the said memorandum dated 01.09.2008. By the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, it has been categorically provided that the persons holding the status of the DRW/Casual/Contingent Workers who were engaged on full time basis in different Departments with or without concurrence of Finance Department and had completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008 other than Permanent Labourers, Part-time workers, Anganwadi workers and Helpers, Home Guards, Teachers and Workers engaged under SSA and other Schemes/programmes, may be considered for regularization. The petitioner does not come within the categories which are excluded from the purview of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. Thus, the petitioner was eligible for regularisation, but the respondents have omitted to regularize her in terms of the said memorandum dated 01.09.2008. 11. Having considered all these aspects, the respondents are directed to consider regularization of the petitioner’s service in terms of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition] and release all financial benefits as expeditiously as possible, but by any rate not later than 6(six) months from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. 12. With this direction and observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.