JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner falls within a very short compass. From the memorandum dated 29.01.1996, it appears that the petitioner was initially engaged as the Casual Labourer for performing the duties of Group-D employee on temporary basis and in consideration thereof by the said memorandum the petitioner was engaged further on purely temporary basis with daily wage at Rs.25.50. However, from the communication dated 12.07.2007, it transpires that the petitioner was initially engaged on 05.05.1986 verbally as the Casual Labourer. The said communication was made by the Principal, MBB College, Agartala, West Tripura where the petitioner was posted as the Casual Labourer. There cannot be any controversy that on 31.03.2008 the petitioner completed more than 10(ten) years of service even if the petitioner’s engagement is considered on the basis of the memorandum dated 29.01.1996. When, in terms of the Government policy as borne in the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents] read with the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 [Annexure-R/2 to the reply filed by the respondents], the similarly circumstanced persons were regularized by the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 [Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition] whatsoever the petitioner was unceremoniously excluded from regularization in the Group-D post, though she was wholly covered by the policy of the Government. 3. The petitioner having situated thus made representations and by the memorandum dated 23.06.2010 she was engaged as the Helper to Cook (Group-D) and posted in the MBB College, Agartala, West Tripura. Such engagement was given effect from 05.06.2010. The petitioner by filing representations and serving a notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC has pressed her demand to treat her engagement in terms of the said policy as contained in the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 which clearly provides as under: “Subject to fulfillment of above conditions, the eligible workers will be provided pay scale in the relevant grade for their regularization which will take effect from 1st July 2008.” 4. Mr. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphatically contended that the deprivation of the petitioner to get the regularization from 01.07.2008 is an outcome of arbitrary action by the respondents and such action offends the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence interference by this court is highly warranted in the circumstances. 5. From the other side, Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been appointed in a regular post by the memorandum dated 23.06.2010 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition] where it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner and other two persons who have been entertained in the regular post against the posts created by the memorandum No.F.7(269)DHE/NG/2008(Vol-II) dated 27.02.2009. Based there on Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has contended that since there was no post earlier the petitioner could not be accommodated. That apart, Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was engaged only on 29.01.1996 not on 05.05.1986 as reflected in the communication of the Principal, MBB College, Agartala, West Tripura. But in the reply there is no explanation, even there is no averment in this regard in the reply of the respondents. 6. The petitioner in paragraph-6 of the writ petition has categorically stated that it would be evident from the Annexure-2 to the writ petition that the petitioner had completed more than 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008. Thus she was entitled to get the regularization with effect from 01.07.2008 in terms of the policy of the Government. 7. On scanning of the entire reply, this court does not find any explanation or reason why the petitioner was excluded from regularization. On a scrutiny it appears that the persons who were engaged much after the petitioner as the contingent workers, were regularized by the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 [Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition]. For example, one Sri Bimal Debnath whose name appears at serial No.15 of the said memorandum dated 09.06.2009 was initially engaged on 01.01.1988 as would be evident from the communication of the Principal, MBB College [Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition]. For example, one Sri Bimal Debnath whose name appears at serial No.15 of the said memorandum dated 09.06.2009 was initially engaged on 01.01.1988 as would be evident from the communication of the Principal, MBB College [Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition]. Bimal Debnath has been engaged by the memorandum dated 09.06.2009, but the petitioner was left aside even though her initial engagement is recorded by the competent authorities as 05.05.1986 and she was excluded while issuing the said memorandum dated 09.06.2009. There is no explanation in the reply of the respondents. This court is shocked the way the respondents have acted. 8. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner regularised with effect from 01.07.2008 in terms of the said clause [as reproduced above] appearing in the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents] and to release all the financial benefit in her favour within a period of 4(four) months from the day when a copy of this order will be submitted by the petitioner. If the payment is not made within the stipulated time the said amount shall carry interest @7% till the payment is made. 9. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.