JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to regularise her service in the scale of pay of Rs.4530-13000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1200/- w.e.f. 12.08.2014 with all attendant benefits. Since the petitioner has retired from the service in the afternoon of 31.01.2015 on superannuation as is evident from the office order dated 30.01.2015, Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition, she has further urged for fixing her pension and other retiral pension benefits treating her to have retired in the scale of pay of Rs.4530-13000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1200/- w.e.f. 12.08.2014. Further, she has pressed for direction on the respondents for making payment of the arrear with 9% interest in terms of the above. To advance the said relief, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the office order dated 30.09.2015, Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition, whereby the Director of Agriculture, Government of Tripura has apprised the petitioner that the Finance Department has regretted the proposal for regularising her in the post of Farm Worker. 3. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having referred to the averments of the writ petition has submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged as the Casual Worker on 04.09.1991 and thereafter, the petitioner was declared as the Permanent Labour w.e.f. 01.01.2007 as is available from the seniority list of Permanent Labourers as published by the Department of Agriculture on 31.03.2017, Annexure-P/1 Colly. to the writ petition. For the benefit of large number of Permanent Labourers by way of regularising them in the post of Farm Worker, the respondents declared their policy decision by the memorandum dated 12.08.2014, Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition. By the said memorandum, the minimum length of service required for regularisation of the permanent labourer in the post of Farm Worker was reduced prevailing from 10(ten) years to 7(seven) years. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014 are extracted hereunder: “Some Department had engaged Casual Workers, Daily Rated Workers in the past. As per existing circular of the State Government, such workers have to be absorbed as Permanent labourers before regularizing them as Farm Workers after 10(ten) years of continuous service. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014 are extracted hereunder: “Some Department had engaged Casual Workers, Daily Rated Workers in the past. As per existing circular of the State Government, such workers have to be absorbed as Permanent labourers before regularizing them as Farm Workers after 10(ten) years of continuous service. But it is seen that a large number of such workers have already served more than 10 (ten) years of service before absorption as Permanent Labourers. Therefore, such workers shall have to wait for another 10 (ten) long years for getting their service regularized as Farm Worker which may ultimately hamper pensionery benefits. In view of the above mentioned facts, it has been decided to prescribe the minimum length of service as Permanent labourer from the existing 10 (ten) years to 7 (seven) years for eligibility to be absorbed as Farm Workers, provided a Permanent Labourer should complete total service of at least 15 years’ including the service length as Casual Workers, Daily Rated Workers etc. and subject to the condition that after regularization as Farm Workers, such workers shall continue to do the same job in addition to any other job given by the Controlling Officer and the said posts from which such Farm Workers were inducted shall stand abolished. The concerned Department may approach the Council of Ministers with comprehensive proposals for regularization of such permanent Labourers who had served minimum period of 15 years including the service period as Casual Workers or Daily Rated Workers of which at least 7(seven) years service length should be as Permanent Labourers.” [Emphasis added] It is apparent on the face of the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014 that not only the minimum length of service as the Permanent Labourer from existing 10(ten) years was reduced to 7(seven) years for being eligible for regularisation by way of absorption as Farm worker, but it has been also provided that a permanent labourer should complete at least 15 years including the service rendered as Casual Workers or Daily Rated Workers (DRW) etc. and subject to the further condition that after regularization as the Farm Worker, such workers shall continue to do the same job in addition to any other job that be given by the Controlling Officer. The said post from which such Farm Workers would induct shall stand abolished. 4. and subject to the further condition that after regularization as the Farm Worker, such workers shall continue to do the same job in addition to any other job that be given by the Controlling Officer. The said post from which such Farm Workers would induct shall stand abolished. 4. The petitioner was not considered for regularisation by way of absorption in the post of Farm Worker. She retired from the service as the Permanent Labourer in the afternoon on 31.01.2015. For her regularisation by way of absorption in the post of Farm Worker the petitioner filed the representation and demanded for her regularisation in terms of the memorandum dated 12.08.2014. By the office order dated 30.09.2015, Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition, the Director of Agriculture, Government of Tripura had apprised the petitioner that their proposal made for her regularisation in the post of Farm Worker had been regretted by the Finance Department. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has approached this court for the relief as stated above. 5. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner did not have any subsisting right to be regularised by way of absorption in the post of Farm Worker in terms of the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014. Moreover, the Finance Department had created the post for regularisation by way of absorption of the Farm Worker in terms of the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014 only on 28.02.2015. Therefore, there was no occasion to consider the petitioner’s absorption prior to 28.02.2015. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has referred Para-13 of the reply in support of his contention. Para-13 of the reply reads as under: “That in response to the averments made to the Writ Petition in the para No.5, 6 & 7, I have to submit that the petitioner’s position in the seniority list is 2557. As per memorandum dated 12.08.2014 the Finance Department, relaxed the minimum length of service from 10 years to 07 years as permanent labourer for eligibility to be absorbed as Farm Workers. Thereafter by Notification the Department took initiative to regularise the service of the permanent labourers to the newly created posts of 1602 of Farm workers. As per those notification as per the seniority upto serial No.1602 permanent labourers had come under purview of the said notification dated 28.02.2014. Thereafter by Notification the Department took initiative to regularise the service of the permanent labourers to the newly created posts of 1602 of Farm workers. As per those notification as per the seniority upto serial No.1602 permanent labourers had come under purview of the said notification dated 28.02.2014. But the Petitioner at that point of time already had gone on retirement on 30.01.2015 (Annexure-P/5 to the Writ Petition). As such the question of her regularisation on 28.02.2015 did not arise. The Department after receipt of her representation dated 05.08.2016 for the ex-post facto regularisation and the pensionary benefits thereof placed the same before the Finance Department, which has regretted by the Finance Department (Annexure-P/7 to the Writ Petition).” 6. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted in the rejoinder that the petitioner has quite categorically stated that if the memorandum dated 12.08.2014 is grasped in its letter and spirit, it would transpire that the Finance Department has mis-constructed the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014. The Right to be regularised was with the petitioner in terms of the said memorandum. The said right came into being before her retirement. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularisation with an anterior date of her retirement. Else, there would discrimination amongst the equals whose right to regularisation came into by the memorandum dated 12.08.2014. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions as exposited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the solitary question that emerges for consideration by this court is that whether the memorandum dated 12.08.2014 creates any right in favour of the petitioner. The answer must be in the affirmative. Then, an ancillary question that would visit the premise is that whether such right was subject to creation of the post by the concerned department. 8. It is trite law that any regularisation is always against the available post but this is not an inflexible rule, when the Government by a policy decision declared a definite mode of regularisation by way of absorption. The policy may not be operationalised for absence of creation of the post. But that would not throw the right outside the province. It is trite law that any regularisation is always against the available post but this is not an inflexible rule, when the Government by a policy decision declared a definite mode of regularisation by way of absorption. The policy may not be operationalised for absence of creation of the post. But that would not throw the right outside the province. The petitioner in this case is covered by the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014 inasmuch as she had completed 15(fifteen) years of service as the Casual Worker and the Permanent Labour and moreover, the qualifying service of 7 (seven) years in the post of Permanent Labour she had completed on 31.12.2013. For the delayed creation of the post, the petitioner could not be absorbed in the post before her retirement. As consequence, the petitioner has definitely lost the benefits as intended to be extended to her in terms of the memorandum dated 12.08.2014. The decision of the Finance Department amounts to moratorium of the policy which is completely beyond the scope of the said memorandum dated 12.08.2014. 9. In view of this, this court is of the considered view that the respondents shall consider her regularisation by way of absorption in the post of Farm Worker in terms of the memorandum dated 12.08.2014, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondents. 10. Having held so, this writ petition stand allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.