JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to treat her service as full-time daily rated worker (Group-D) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner was initially engaged as a part-time contingent worker for two hours daily under the Inspector of Schools at Khowai w.e.f. 22.09.1980. She was assigned the duties of sweeping the office building and for carrying drinking water for the staff. She continued to discharge such duties uninterruptedly year after year. On 07.11.2012 the Government of Tripura issued an office memorandum which provided that all part-time workers working in different departments of the Government for 2, 3 or 4 hours and were engaged on or before 31.03.2003 and who had completed 10 years of service would be engaged as daily workers (DRW Group-D) w.e.f. 01.12.2012 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. According to the petitioner, she should have been granted the benefit of the said office memorandum and she should have been made a full-time DRW. According to the petitioner, her office had also made proposal to Finance Department for converting her service into full-time service. However, for some unknown reason the same was not granted. She finally made a representation on 01.06.2018 and requested the respondents to grant her benefit of full-time servant. This was also not done. She, therefore, filed this petition. 3. The respondents have appeared and filed reply in which the stand taken is that the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation of 60 years and has been released w.e.f. 30.06.2017 and that the proposal for converting her service into full-time engagement was never forwarded to the department by her unit. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, the stand taken by the respondents to oppose the prayer of the petitioner is not valid. Because the petitioner by now has crossed the age of superannuation, does not mean that at the relevant time she was not entitled to the benefit of the office memorandum dated 07.11.2012. This office memorandum, as noted, clearly envisages conversion of part-time workers into full-time engagement provided they were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 and had completed 10 years of service on 01.12.2012. This office memorandum, as noted, clearly envisages conversion of part-time workers into full-time engagement provided they were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 and had completed 10 years of service on 01.12.2012. The defence of the respondent No. 3 that the office where the petitioner was engaged did not send the proposal for the purpose of engagement on full-time basis is also not a valid one. The petitioner was a poorly paid part-time worker who continued to sweep the floors and fill water for the staff for decades together. If a unit did not send her name for engagement on full-time basis, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. She obviously neither had wherewithal nor full understanding of this Government scheme. Rather unfortunately, however, this issue has come before the High Court after the petitioner has been released upon crossing the age of superannuation. The only benefit that she would have got under the said office memorandum dated 07.11.2012 was of full-time engagement and pay commensurate with such full-time engagement. When she has not rendered full-time service, she cannot be compensated fully for the entire period during which she lost the opportunity to render full-time service and consequently earn full-time wages. Under the circumstances, while not granting the prayer made by the petitioner by way of lump sum compensation it is directed that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. This shall be done within four weeks from today. 5. Petition is disposed of. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.