JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2014, Annexure-14 to the writ petition along with its corrigendum dated 13.06.2014, Annexure-15 to the writ petition. Even the memorandum dated 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, and the order dated 10.10.2008, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, are under challenge. There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged as the Daily Rated Worker [the DRW in short] on 08.12.1988 on full time basis. On 30.05.2005, he was arrested in connection with a police case which was later on registered as GR Case No. 82 of 2005 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura. He was released on bail on 10.06.2005. After being released on bail, the petitioner had approached the authority by filing an application to allow him to join his duties as usual. According to the petitioner, without any written order he was prevented from attending his duties. The petitioner was not so allowed till by the judgment and order dated 19.08.2008 acquitting him from the charge was passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura. The petitioner was not aware of the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, out of extreme poverty as stated by Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel, the petitioner filed an application dated 15.10.2008, Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents, for re-engaging him as the DRW. By the impugned office order dated 10.10.2008, the petitioner was re-engaged as the DRW in view of the acquittal as recorded in the judgment and order dated 19.08.2008 as delivered in GR. 82 of 2005. The petitioner thereafter has been continuing in service. The petitioner has discovered that by the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, he along with others were declared as the Permanent Labour [the PL in short] under the Department of Agriculture. In the list appended to the said memorandum dated 29.11.2007, the name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 515. But subsequently by another memorandum dated 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the petitioner was again declared as the PL. In the list appended to the said memorandum dated 29.11.2007, the name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 515. But subsequently by another memorandum dated 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the petitioner was again declared as the PL. In the said memorandum, the name of the petitioner figures at S. No. 11 but this time the date of engagement as the DRW has been shown as 15.10.2008. 3. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was issued in some correspondences the petitioner was referred as the PL. For illustration, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has referred to the communication dated 16.01.2009, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, where the petitioner has been designated as the PL. Accordingly, Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel, has contended that the petitioner was being treated as the PL. Even on 11.05.2011 while the Director of Agriculture had issued a no objection certificate for purpose of acquiring an Indian Passport, the petitioner has been designated as the PL. Further on 31.12.2011 when the salary particulars were issued, the petitioner was shown as the PL and his salary had been calculated in terms of that status. The petitioner has finally referred the office order dated 17.10.2012 where the petitioner has again been shown as the PL by the Superintendent of Agriculture, Melaghar. Similarly, in the office order the petitioner has been shown as the PL. As in the tentative seniority list dated 24.05.2014, the petitioner was shown at S. No. 7. The petitioner filed a protest petition for providing him the correct position. By the corrigendum dated 13.06.2014, the petitioner’s designation was changed to DRW from PL. By issuing another memorandum dated 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as the PL afresh. The petitioner has challenged the draft seniority list, the corrigendum thereof and the subsequent memorandum dated 15.10.2014. 4. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. By the corrigendum dated 13.06.2014, the petitioner’s designation was changed to DRW from PL. By issuing another memorandum dated 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as the PL afresh. The petitioner has challenged the draft seniority list, the corrigendum thereof and the subsequent memorandum dated 15.10.2014. 4. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that true it is that after issuance of the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the said memorandum was never corrected but from the records, it would reveal that the petitioner was re-engaged as the DRW by the order dated 10.10.2008, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and after few years i.e. on 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the petitioner was declared as the PL under the Agriculture Department. The petitioner was engaged as the DRW afresh on 15.10.2010 and he was declared PL on 15.10.2014. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. has further submitted that the petitioner was disengaged from 30.05.2005 till he was reengaged by the office order dated 10.10.2008. By mistake by the office memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner was declared as the PL though at the relevant point of time he was not in the engagement as the DRW when such engagement is pre requisite for consideration of the PL. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition as under: “1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and permanent resident of Sonamura Tripura. He had joined the Govt. Service under the Department of Agriculture as DRW on 08.12.1988. He was arrested by the police on 30.05.2005 on the basis of false information and he was kept in custody from 30.05.2005 to 09.06.2005 in connection with GR case No. 82 of 2005. On 10.06.2005 he was released on bail. After being released he had submitted an application to the Director of Agriculture through proper channels on 15.06.2005 and requested to allow him to join his duty. A copy of the application of the petitioner dated 15.06.2005 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1. 2. That thereafter the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duties but no written order was communicated to him disallowing him from attending office. A copy of the application of the petitioner dated 15.06.2005 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1. 2. That thereafter the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duties but no written order was communicated to him disallowing him from attending office. The Director of Agriculture issued memorandum dated 29.11.2007 publishing a list of DRWs and casual labourers (who have been engaged as permanent labourer) vide departmental order dated 10.09.2007 w.e.f. 01.01.2007. In this list the name of the petitioner appears as permanent labour at S. No. 515 under S.A. Sonamura. The petitioner was tried in the said case No. GR 82/05 by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura and after trial he was found not guilty and so he was acquitted by judgment dated 19.08.2008 holding that „both the accused not found guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted from the charges. After his acquittal on 19.08.2008 he was allowed to resume his duties w.e.f. 15.10.2008 and he was put to perform the duties of permanent labour and he was paid his salary accordingly. The petitioner has been still now performing the same duty which the PL performs.” 5. By filing the reply, the respondents have averred as follows: “8. That the statement made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition is admitted. 9. That in regard to the statement made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition is stated that Md. Kaji Muslim Miah was acquitted from the liability of the charge as per judgment passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura on 19.08.2008 against case No. GR 82 of 2005 and joined in the office of the Superintendent of Agriculture, Melaghar as DRW on 15.10.2008.” 6. There is no denial by the respondents to the fact that the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duties but no written order was communicated to him to the effect that he would not be allowed to attend the office. On the contrary, the averments that on 15.06.2005, the petitioner by filing an application, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, had requested the respondent No. 3 to allow him join his duty but they resisted him do not disputed the petitioner’s claim. On the contrary, the averments that on 15.06.2005, the petitioner by filing an application, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, had requested the respondent No. 3 to allow him join his duty but they resisted him do not disputed the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has also admitted that on his prayer the petitioner was engaged as the DRW afresh and thereafter, he was re-declared as the PL. As a result, the petitioner has lost the benefits for the said period when he was prevented from discharging his duties without any reasonable excuse. No doubt, this is a case of such nature usually does not appear for adjudication. 7. In view of the statements made in Paras-1 & 2 of the writ petition, which remained undisputed, this court is of the view that the petitioner shall not be deprived of the service that he has rendered from 08.12.1988 and accordingly, the order dated 10.10.2008, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the memorandum dated 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the memorandum dated 22.05.2014, Annexure-14 to the writ petition, and the corrigendum dated 13.06.2015, Annexure-15 to the writ petition, are interfered with for a limited purpose that the petitioner’s status as the DRW shall be counted from 08.12.1988 and his status as the PL shall be treated from 29.11.2007 when the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was issued but the petitioner will not get further financial benefit of PL till 15.10.2014. The petitioner would only get the continuity of the status which had been by effect taken away by the respondents by the impugned memoranda. It is made clear that the petitioner would get the seniority in terms of declaration as the PL by the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The consequential benefits shall be restricted to regularization. At the same time, the GPF account opened in the name of the petitioner as the PL shall not be disturbed. It shall be allowed to be operated in the name of the petitioner as the PL. That apart, if any financial benefit has been received by the petitioner, that shall be recovered. 8. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.