JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions being WP(C) 1255 of 2016 [Ajit Debnath VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1256 of 2016 [Nihar Deb Choudhury VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1257 of 2016 [Basu Ranjan Sarkar VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1295 of 2016 [Md. Chaidur Rahaman VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1296 of 2016 [Dipankar Deb VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1297 of 2016 [Maya Debnath VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1298 of 2016 [Ashotosh Bhowmik VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1299 of 2016 [Rajesh Dasgupta VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1300 of 2016 [Swapna Rani Saha VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1301 of 2016 [Namita Das VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1302 of 2016 [Chandan Ghosh VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1303 of 2016 [Tulshi Debnath VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1304 of 2016 [Bholanath Saha VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1305 of 2016 [Nantu Dutta VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1306 of 2016 [Bhajan Shil VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1307 of 2016 [Sankar Chandra Saha VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1308 of 2016 [Basab Nandi VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1309 of 2016 [Shipra Chakraborty VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1310 of 2016 [Rekha Ghosh VS State of Tripura & Others] & WP(C) 1311 of 2016 [Anjan Bardhan VS State of Tripura & Others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as a common question of law in the backdrop resembling facts falls for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. The facts are mostly admitted. But the question that has been seriously resisted by the respondents is that the petitioners cannot claim regularisation. 3. All the petitioners were admittedly engaged as the Daily Rated Worker [the DRW in short] by virtue of the memorandum under No. F.6(2-23)-DYAS/Estt/08/(L-5)/13900-975 dated 26.03.2013. By the said memorandum, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were declared as DRW (Group-D) with effect from 10.08.2005 and they were posted in their earlier place of posting. 3. All the petitioners were admittedly engaged as the Daily Rated Worker [the DRW in short] by virtue of the memorandum under No. F.6(2-23)-DYAS/Estt/08/(L-5)/13900-975 dated 26.03.2013. By the said memorandum, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were declared as DRW (Group-D) with effect from 10.08.2005 and they were posted in their earlier place of posting. In the said list, annexed to the memorandum dated 26.03.2013, the names of all the petitioners are appearing. The said declaration as made in the memorandum dated 26.03.2013 has been so made pursuant to the memorandum under No. F.34(6)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 22.09.2014 whereby the Finance Department asked the Secretary to the Youth Affairs & Sports Department to furnish the list of the persons who were working either as the Part Time Workers or on Contract etc. for purpose of creation of required number of posts of DRW(Group-D) for their engagement in those posts. Those who were found eligible to be engaged as the DRW (Group-D) after verification of their particulars, were engaged on acting upon the said memorandum dated 22.09.2014. In the process all the petitioners were declared as Daily Rated Workers (DRW) by the memorandum dated 26.03.2013. 4. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that to that aspect of the matter, there is no controversy. 5. Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 [Annexure P/6 to the writ petition] all the petitioners were entitled to be regularised from the next date of completion of 10 years of service as the DRW. For purpose of reference the entire text of the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009 is extracted hereunder: “MEMORANDUM Subject : Regularisation of services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers on the next date of completion of 10 years of service. The undersigned is directed to inform that the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize services of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers from the next date of completion of 10 years of service and fulfil the following criterion as per Department-wise names and particulars attached herewith: (i) DRW/Casual/Contingent workers who were engaged on a full time basis in different departments with or without concurrence of Finance Department 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 as per names attached. (ii) Requirement of age as per Recruitment Rules will be deemed to be relaxed for the purpose of this regularization. (iii) Requirement of educational qualification as per Recruitment Rules will be deemed as relaxed for regularization under Group-D only. In case of DRW/ and Contingent Workers who were appointed under Group-C category, educational qualification as required under concerned R.R. must be ensured while entertaining their cases for regularization. (iv) Except age and educational qualification mentioned in point (ii) & (iii) all other criterion as per relevant Recruitment Rules including reservation roster will have to be followed strictly for this process of regularization. (v) Subject to fulfilment of above conditions, the eligible workers will be provided pay scale in the relevant post on the following day of completion of 10 years of service (without any break) from the date of joining. In the event of revision of pay scales the revised structure will be followed as per Govt’s decision. 2. To facilitate quick action for implementation of the above decisions, appropriate authorities of the concerned Administrative Departments of the State Government are authorized to take following actions : (i) The Departments will scrutinize the records and particulars of the workers whose names and particulars are included in the annexure attached herewith to ascertain their eligibility for regularization. Only those workers out of the attached annexure who fulfils all the above criteria are to be regularized. (ii) While ascertaining eligibility, other than relaxation made in respect of educational qualification and age, other requirements like nationality, reservation quota are to be followed strictly. All original documents shall be checked by the Departments to ensure genuineness of records/documents. (iii) After ascertaining the number of eligible cases, the department will take steps for creation of required number of posts in the appropriate category including creation of post for SC and ST as per 100 point roster for accommodating them in the concerned pay scale for regularization. The computation is to be done to ensure 31% reservation for ST & 17% reservation for SC against the number of UR candidates as per list enclosed without bringing any previous backlog. Formal appointment orders are to be issued by concerned appropriate authority accordingly. After taking this step department will send proposal to the Finance Department for ex-post-facto concurrence for creation of posts. Formal appointment orders are to be issued by concerned appropriate authority accordingly. After taking this step department will send proposal to the Finance Department for ex-post-facto concurrence for creation of posts. (iv) Following regularization of the eligible cases out of list attached herewith, the Departments are required to take action to ensure recruitment of shortfall of candidates under ST & SC category to fulfil the roster. In respect of such shortfall under Group D category, the Tribal Welfare Department would act as the Nodal Department for selection of required number of candidates and sponsoring them to the respective Department. The Departments are requested to send a report to the Finance Department within one month immediately after action taken as per the instant Memorandum alongwith list of workers regularized. 3. There shall be a complete ban on engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent etc. workers after 31.3.2003 without concurrence from Finance Department. Responsibility shall be fixed on the official found responsible for any irregular engagement henceforth. Such irregular engagement shall have to be instantly terminated. The wages, if paid any, shall be recovered from the official concerned. 4. The undersigned is directed to request all concerned to ensure strict implementation of the above declarations.” [Emphasis added] 6. The only question that should fall for consideration is that whether since appointment as the DRW there was any break in the service of the petitioners or not. In this regard, there is no resistance from the respondents. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has submitted that in para-7 of the reply the respondents have averred their position why the petitioners were not regularized. Para-6 is therefore being of relevance in this case, is extracted hereunder: “6. Sans unnecessary details, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was engaged without concurrence of the Finance Department as Casual Worker after 31.3.2003 when there is a complete ban on engagement as such. Under a policy decision of the government of Tripura in the Finance Department he was allowed to continue to work with the same rate of wage as earlier but that will construe concurrence for engagement or creation of post. As per proposal sent by the Administrative Department through File No.F.6(2-23)DYAS/ESTT/08(L-5) dated 9.1.2013 for consideration of 66 nos. Under a policy decision of the government of Tripura in the Finance Department he was allowed to continue to work with the same rate of wage as earlier but that will construe concurrence for engagement or creation of post. As per proposal sent by the Administrative Department through File No.F.6(2-23)DYAS/ESTT/08(L-5) dated 9.1.2013 for consideration of 66 nos. of PTWs as DRWs, the Finance Department vide Memo No. 34(6)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 11.1.2013 has been agreed to for those who were engaged prior to 31.3.2003 but in the enclosure of F.Ds Memo the name of the petitioner found place as Daily Rated Worker with effect from 10.8.2005 vide Annexure P/2 of the writ petition. I submit that following the decision of the Government in the Finance Department above the Administrative Department has complied with the same by issuing Memo No. F.6(2-23)-DYAS/Estt/08/(L-5)/13900-975 dated 26.3.2013 (Annexure P/4). So the petitioner has been treated as DRWs (Group-D). On an earlier occasion a proposal was sent by the Administrative Department vide letter No.F.6(2-53)-DYAS/08(L-1)8085 dated 19.10.2012 for regularisation of the 68 persons named in the list including the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service. A copy of the aforesaid letter No.F.6(2-53)-DYAS/08(L-1)8085 dated 19.10.2012 is annexed herein and is marked as Annexure R/1 of the affidavit. But the Finance Department has regularised only 5 out of list vide Memorandum No. F.34(3)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 18.12.2012, a copy of which is enclosed herein and is marked as Annexure R/2 of this affidavit. Those who are regularised had been engaged on full time basis prior to 31.3.2003 and as such they are covered by the Memo of regularisation.” 7. From the Para-6 of the reply, what surfaces for relevant consideration is that, according to the respondents, those who are engaged prior to 31.3.2003 are only competent to be regularised in terms of the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009, not others. 8. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has also brought to the notice of this court one note of the Finance Department being Note No.9 [Annexure-R/4 to the said reply] where it has been stated as under: “Finance Department regrets its inability to concur the proposal of the Department as there is no policy decision of the Government for regularization of workers who were engaged after the cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2003.” The said note was given on 08.09.2016, as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has pointed out. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has pointed out. The said note has been given by the Finance Department with reference to the proposal made from the department for regularisation of the petitioners. The said note of the department is also available with Note No.6 of their reply. 9. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has further submitted that on the basis of the memorandum dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure R/2] another exercise was taken for regularisation of services of DRWs/Casual Workers etc. from several departments, who were engaged on full time on or prior to 31.03.2003 and had completed 10 years of continuous service. It is reflected from the memorandum dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure R/2 to the reply] that a decision was taken by the government to regularise the services of the DRWs/casual workers, of the Department, who were engaged on or prior to 31.03.2003 on full time basis with or without concurrence of Finance Department and have completed 10 years of service as on 31.07.2012, other than Part Time Workers, Contract Basis Workers, Honorarium Paid Worker, Voluntary Workers, Teachers and Workers engaged under SSA and other Schemes/ Programmes, may be considered for this process of regularization. Thereafter the other general conditions as are available in the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 have been engrafted. This memorandum has nothing to do with the memorandum dated 21.01.2009. 10. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has also pointed out the Para-3 of the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009 [Annexure P/6 to the writ petition] where it has been provided that: “3. There shall be a complete ban on engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent etc. workers after 31.03.2003 without concurrence from Finance Department. Responsibility shall be fixed on the official found responsible for any irregular engagement henceforth. Such irregular engagement shall have to be instantly terminated. The wages, if paid any, shall be recovered from the official concerned.” This clause in no way is relevant in the context as from the memorandum dated 26.03.2013 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition] it clearly transpires that the petitioners were declared DRWs with prior concurrence of the Finance Department with effect from a common date i.e. 10.08.2005. All the petitioners have completed 10(ten) years of required service for regularisation on 09.08.2005 (afternoon), if there is, of course, no break in their service. The petitioners have asserted that they have been continuing in their service without any break. 11. All the petitioners have completed 10(ten) years of required service for regularisation on 09.08.2005 (afternoon), if there is, of course, no break in their service. The petitioners have asserted that they have been continuing in their service without any break. 11. In view of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009, this court does not find any impediment in the way of regularisation of the petitioners after their completion of ten years of service. However, such regularisation would be subject to the conditions as laid down in the memorandum dated 21.01.2009. 12. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners with effect from the next date on completion of ten years of service within a period of 6(six) months from today on scrutinising their individual records. But it is made clear that they shall get the regular scale with effect from the next date of completion of ten years of service in terms of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009. With these observations and direction, all these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.