JUDGMENT : By means of this writ petition the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to regularize his service in Group-C post under the Tripura Institute of Technology, the TIT in short on expiry of ten years since his appointment as the Daily Rated Worker (DRW). The petitioner was engaged as the Instructor in the Community Polytechnic Institute, Narsingarh on 08.04.1994. As the former staff of the Community Polytechnic, the petitioner was performing the duties assigned to him. In para-6 of the writ petition the petitioner has averred as under: “That, the Petitioner was engaged as Instructor under the Community Polytechnic Scheme of the Union of India. Be it mentioned here, that, as per decision of the Ministry of Human Resource and Development the Community Polytechnic Scheme had been declared closed in the year 2007. Vide., Letter No.F.21-5/2007-TS/IV dated, 30-07-07, issued by the Director, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) the Principals of all Community Polytechnics were directed to wind-up the Scheme and all activities based on the existing guideline of the Scheme and to refund to the Ministry the unspent balance of the grant-in-aid (including interest and other income earned in the Scheme lying with the Polytechnic Institute (both recurring and non-recurring).” 2. As soon as the scheme was wound up, the core-staff of the Community Polytechnic submitted a joint representation to the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura on 12.04.2007. In the representation, all the 11(eleven) core-staffs had asserted that they had been serving since 1985 [the various dates onwards] to the entire satisfaction of their authority and their selection was made in the Community Polytechnic following the recruitment guidelines of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India for the Community Polytechnic. 3. On 30.07.2001, by a letter [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition] the Project Co-ordinator, Community Polytechnic Institute and Principal In-Charge, Polytechnic Institute proposed for regularization of the core-staff of the Community Polytechnic who were engaged on fixed pay basis. It would be evident from the office order No.F.2(3-1)-TIT/DRW/2007/547-61 dated 11.09.2007 issued by the Principal-in-Charge, Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh all the core-staff were allowed to continue in their respective works in the institution until further order. The said order was issued in terms of the order dated 06.09.2007 of the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura. It would be evident from the office order No.F.2(3-1)-TIT/DRW/2007/547-61 dated 11.09.2007 issued by the Principal-in-Charge, Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh all the core-staff were allowed to continue in their respective works in the institution until further order. The said order was issued in terms of the order dated 06.09.2007 of the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura. It is to be noted further that those 13 DRWs were engaged against the World Bank Scheme for running the Community Polytechnic as the responsive institution of the Polytechnic Institute, Tripura. 4. All on a sudden, by the letter dated 27.03.2010 [Annexure-P/10 to the writ petition] the Drawing & Disbursing and the Head of Office, TIT was informed by the Director of Higher Education that the Government has decided not to entertain the casual workers as mentioned in his reference till the community polytechnic is revived. The names of the casual workers, who have to be discontinued, were mentioned in the said letter. 5. By the memorandum dated 31.03.2010 [Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition] issued by the Drawing & Disbursing Officer and Head of Office, Tripura Institute of Technology, the services of the casual workers working under the Polytechnic Institute at that point of time were discontinued. Further, be it mentioned that when the scheme was wound up, the petitioner and other casual workers (DRWs) made a representation to the Special Secretary & Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura for their regularization. When the initiative was taken for regularization, the Finance Department regretted its inability to concur with the said proposal for regularization of the service of the casual workers who were engaged in the Community Polytechnic under the World Bank Assisted Tech. Ed-III Project. 6. The writ petitioner has categorically stated that out of 13(thirteen) persons, two persons were engaged with effect from 01.01.1996 and another was engaged from 22.03.2002 and the remaining ten were engaged between April, 2003 to August, 2004. 7. On the basis of length of the engagement, the proposal for regularization was forwarded to the Finance Department. There had been a series of correspondences over that issue. The petitioner had submitted his own representations one after another, but without any positive yield. 7. On the basis of length of the engagement, the proposal for regularization was forwarded to the Finance Department. There had been a series of correspondences over that issue. The petitioner had submitted his own representations one after another, but without any positive yield. According to the petitioner, he had submitted one representation on 15.02.2011 to the Principal, TIT for regularization of his service and thereafter, the petitioner and other core-staff of the said polytechnic submitted representation in sequel, but that did not bring the desired result. 8. By the memorandum No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, it was informed to all concerned that Government had taken a policy decision to regularize the service of the full time DRWs/Casual/Contingent workers from the next date of completion of ten years of service, subject to the fulfillment of the criteria as laid down in the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009 [Annexure-P/19 to the writ petition]. 9. By the memorandum No.F.7(269)-DHE/NG/2009 dated 27.12.2013 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, Sri Kamal Deb, Casual Worker, Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh, Agartala was appointed in the post of Group-C (L.D. Clerk). But the other casual workers were not considered at that relevant point of time. Another Casual Worker namely Dipak Das who was earlier engaged as a Driver in the Community Polytechnic Scheme was regularized. 10. Notably, the Finance Department was maintaining a data base of the casual workers/DRWs serving under the different departments. In that data base, the name of the petitioner had been wrongly mentioned as Rajib Bhattacharjee, instead of Rajit Bhattacharjee. By the letter dated 01.06.2011 [Annexure-P/26 to the writ petition] the Director of Higher Education, Tripura requested the Finance Department to make necessary correction in the name of the petitioner. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department had assured to correct the name. It was so done. The petitioner had prayed for regularization. There is no dispute as such except in respect of right of the petitioner to be regularized from the casual worker under the Community Polytechnic Scheme to the regular establishment of Tripura Institute of Technology (TIT). 11. The respondents by filing the reply have asserted that the petitioner was discontinued and in this regard the relevant office order as issued on 29.03.2010 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply] has been referred. 11. The respondents by filing the reply have asserted that the petitioner was discontinued and in this regard the relevant office order as issued on 29.03.2010 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply] has been referred. However, it has been clearly admitted that the Department of Higher Education conveyed its decision to maintain the status-quo as an interim measure and hence the petitioner is still continuing as the Daily Rated Worker. The respondents in the reply have categorically stated that the policy decision of the Government has laid down unequivocally that no worker engaged under any scheme shall be regularized. It has been also asserted that the petitioner cannot compare his position with Kamal Deb and Dipak Das and hence there is no merit in this petition. But no analogy has been exposited in the reply why the petitioner and those two persons namely Kamal Deb and Dipak Das cannot be comparable when the petitioner and those persons who were regularized were working under the same scheme. They were holding the same position. 12. In para-14, the respondents have asserted that as the petitioner was working under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, his name was not included in the list for regularization. It is an independent act of the petitioner to urge for regularization along with 13(thirteen) core-staff to the Director of Higher Education, but the claim has no basis at all. 13. In respect of the appointment of Kamal Deb to the post of LDC on the regular basis, the respondents have stated as under: “That in reply to the contention made in Para-26 of the petition I submit that Kamal Deb was regularized to the post of LDC and he is posted to the office of the Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh. Before considering regularization of the case of Kamal Deb, Department sought information from the TIT to confirm whether Kamal Deb, Casual Worker was engaged under any scheme. A copy of the letter addressed to the Principal, TIT, Narsingarh vide letter No.F.2(269)-DHE/NG/2009(L-1)/5010 dated 26.10.2013 is enclosed herein and is marked as Annexure-R/3 of this affidavit. The Principal, TIT has confirmed that Kamal Deb has been serving in the TIT since 22.3.2002 as Casual Worker and he has not been engaged under any scheme/project as per records. A copy of the letter addressed to the Principal, TIT, Narsingarh vide letter No.F.2(269)-DHE/NG/2009(L-1)/5010 dated 26.10.2013 is enclosed herein and is marked as Annexure-R/3 of this affidavit. The Principal, TIT has confirmed that Kamal Deb has been serving in the TIT since 22.3.2002 as Casual Worker and he has not been engaged under any scheme/project as per records. A copy of the letter of the Principal, TIT vide No.F.2(3-1)-TIT/DRW/2007/7007 dated 13.11.2013 is enclosed herein and is marked as Annexure-R/4 of this affidavit. In view of the above it is perse that Shri Kamal Deb, Casual Worker in the TIT was not engaged under any scheme. Therefore, he is very well covered within the eligibility of the scheme of regularization contained in Memo dated 21.1.2009 vide Annexure-R/2 of this affidavit.” 14. In para-25, the respondents have stated that Kamal Deb was never engaged against the scheme. In para-26 of the reply the respondents have further stated as under: “That in reply to the contentions made in Para-29, 30 & 31 of the petition I humbly submit that Sri Dipak Das was regularized to the post of Group-D and is posted to TIT, Narsingarh, Dipak Das was regularized in view of the fact that he was very well covered by the Memo dated 21.1.2009 issued by the Finance Department contained vide Annexure- R/2 of this affidavit. He is not a schematic staff under any scheme/project. Before regularization the same was confirmed by the Principal, TIT. A copy of the letter No.F.2(3-1)-TIT/DRW/2007/284 dated 3.7.2014 issued by the Principal, TIT is enclosed herein and is marked as Aneexure-R/4 of the affidavit. The case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Sri Dipak Das. The petitioner is a schematic employee while Dipak Das was not.” 15. Thus, the respondents have made the differentiation between the petitioner and those Kamal Deb and Dipak Das whom the petitioner claimed to have been engaged under the Community Polytechnic Scheme. The respondents have admitted that while entering the name of the petitioner in the list of the DRWs, the petitioner’s name was wrongly spelt. But later on, that was corrected to Sri Rajit Bhattacharjee from Sri Rajib Bhattacharjee. Thus, all confusions in respect of identity of the petitioner vis-a-vis the said database are set at rest. 16. Mr. The respondents have admitted that while entering the name of the petitioner in the list of the DRWs, the petitioner’s name was wrongly spelt. But later on, that was corrected to Sri Rajit Bhattacharjee from Sri Rajib Bhattacharjee. Thus, all confusions in respect of identity of the petitioner vis-a-vis the said database are set at rest. 16. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced like Kamal Deb and Dipak Das as the petitioner was also initially engaged under the Community Polytechnic and later on by virtue of the order of the Director of Higher Education the petitioner continued to serve in the Polytechnic Institute [renamed as Tripura Institute of Technology]. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further submitted that this case is squarely covered by a previous decision of this court in Sajal Kar and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors. [judgment and order dated 04.03.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.229 of 2015]. 17. On comparison of the said judgment dated 04.03.2016 and other materials as placed in the present writ petition, it appears that the facts are identical and as such it can be declared that this writ petition is covered by the judgment dated 04.03.2016, where it has been observed thus: “17. From the rival contentions, the following questions fall for consideration viz. : (i) Whether the source of engagement as the casual workers of the petitioners and the regularized persons are different to stand out the necessary classification for purpose of denying of regularization of the petitioners? (ii) Whether the petitioners are also eligible to be regularized under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, as amended from time to time and the memorandum dated 03.01.2014? 18. This court does not have any hesitation after scrutiny of the records to hold that the source of engagement of the petitioners and said Dipak Das is same and as such on that respect there cannot be any differentiation as made by the respondents. But that may not provide the necessary corollary to hold that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 as amended from time to time or under the memorandum dated 03.01.2014. But that may not provide the necessary corollary to hold that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 as amended from time to time or under the memorandum dated 03.01.2014. In this regard, this court is again persuaded to hold that for all purposes as it emanates from the records so produced by the Principal or Head of the office, Tripura Institute of Technology, formerly Polytechnic Institute and as those clearly establish that the petitioners and Dipak Das were working as the casual worker in the same source i.e. of the Polytechnic Institute now Tripura Institute of Technology having being engaged as the casual workers before 31.03.2003. They have completed 10(ten) years of service as required. The respondents did not label their engagements as illegal or against the constitutional scheme of the public employment. Their solitary ground for not regularizing the petitioners is that they were working under the Community Polytechnic Scheme. It appears that the fund was provided for running the Community Polytechnic, but the casual workers were not solely working in the scheme and they have also working under the Tripura Institute of Technology, formerly Tripura Polytechnic Institute. So it appears from the communication dated 03.09.2012, Annexure-P/15 to the writ petition, where it has been categorically stated that: “So the cases of such employees of TIT Narsingarh considered may kindly be considered also along with others. All the above employees are hard working and essentially required for Tripura Institute of Technology.” 19. The benevolent scheme for regularization of such casual workers cannot be frustrated by the technical approach of this nature, rather, it should be read liberally else there would be great injustice. Hence, it is necessary that the petitioners are considered for regularization under the scheme as reflected by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 as stated. 20. It has clearly transpired that the petitioners have always been treated as the casual worker of Polytechnic Institute, now the Tripura Institute of Technology and their services were accordingly realised. Still they are so working. Even similarly circumstanced person, namely Dipak Das who has been regularized, was also the casual worker of the Community Polytechnic. Thus, the difference as had been made between Dipak Das and the petitioners is not based on intelligible differentia for purpose of relegating the mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Still they are so working. Even similarly circumstanced person, namely Dipak Das who has been regularized, was also the casual worker of the Community Polytechnic. Thus, the difference as had been made between Dipak Das and the petitioners is not based on intelligible differentia for purpose of relegating the mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners are entitled to be considered by the respondents for regularization under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, as amended from time to time. 21. Having held so, the respondents are directed to consider the regularization of the petitioners in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents) read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure P18 to the writ petition) and such consideration shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from today, in super session of the communication dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure-P/23 of the writ petition). 22. In the result the writ petition is allowed to be extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.” 18. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the state will have no objection for extending the similar consideration, as directed by this court in Sajal Kar and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors. (supra). However, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has reiterated that since the petitioner was a casual worker under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 will have no application in the context. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the writ petition. 19. Having scrutinized the records and the judgment dated 04.03.2016 in particular this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the similar direction as made in Sajal Kar and Ors. (supra). In terms of the memorandum No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 it is directed that the petitioner shall be extended similar consideration within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. 20. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.