JUDGMENT A. Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellant- State of Tripura. Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- petitioner and Mr. B. Mujumder, learned Asst. S.G. on behalf of respondent- Union of India. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in connection with case No. WP(C) 219/2018 [Smti. Laxmi Rani Sarkar @ Laxmi Sarkar v. State of Tripura and others]. 3. The facts as projected by learned Single Judge may be reproduced hereinbelow: '.......2. It appears from the records that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2018, her date of superannuation. As the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, (respondent No. 3) has regretted the regularization of the petitioner, she has challenged the said decision to pave the way for issuance of mandamus in terms of the above. 3. The petitioner was engaged as the daily rated worker (DRW) initially by the memorandum No.F.10(10-1)/80 dated 28.09.1981. The petitioner had reported to her duties to the Project Implementing Committee, Khowai Border Area Project and continued to work there in the said capacity till 31.10.1988. By the memorandum No. F.1.(24)/87 dated 01.11.1988 issued by the respondent No.4, the petitioner was absorbed as the Contingent Peon on the consolidated pay of Rs.600/- per month for the period from 09.11.1988 to 02.05.1989. By another memorandum under No. F.1(24)/87 dated 01.02.1989 issued by the respondent No.5, the petitioner was again allowed to work as DRW with effect from 06.02.1989. 4. The petitioner had been working as DRW/Contingent Peon (Group-D) under the respondent No.4, as stated. Her service got extended for a period spanning about 36 years. Her service, according to the petitioner was continuous and without any break. Even where there is some mechanical break in the service, as per the stipulation of the engagement, on those breaks, the petitioner was engaged by separate orders as DRW to serve the respondent No.4. 5. According to the petitioner, for engagement of the petitioner prior concurrence from the Finance Department, Government of Tripura and approval from the Central Social Welfare Board were taken. But the respondents did not consider the petitioner for regularization, notwithstanding her long service. But some persons were engaged on regular basis under the same capacity from the similar status but the petitioner's case for regularization was harshly ignored. But the respondents did not consider the petitioner for regularization, notwithstanding her long service. But some persons were engaged on regular basis under the same capacity from the similar status but the petitioner's case for regularization was harshly ignored. 6. By the memorandum No. F.34(3)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 04.09.2012 (Annexure-D to the writ petition), Government of Tripura has adopted the policy of regularization of DRW/Contingent employee who were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 on full time basis and had completed 10 years of service. The said category of DRWs/Contingent workers were considered for regularization, subject to fulfillment of other conditions as stipulated. 7. The petitioner has asserted that she was eligible for regularization in terms of the memorandum dated 04.09.2012. The petitioner's name, along with some others, with all particulars, was sent to the respondent No.2 by the forwarding letter dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) for regularization. The petitioner has further asserted that in the said process many DRWs and contingent employees were regularized but her case was not considered. The petitioner has given some examples how such regularization had taken place. 8. By the memorandum dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-H to the writ petition), one Swaraj Ghosh, not party in this proceeding, was regularized on relaxing the age and qualification and on taking 100% financial responsibility by the State government, but the petitioner was deprived and was not equally treated. 9. By the memorandum under No. F.8(3)/FIN(G)/78 dated 25.02.2010 the Government of Tripura declared benefit of counting half of the period of continuous service rendered by DRWs/contingent workers/multi-rated workers/casual workers who are engaged on full time basis, for purpose of pension. According to the petitioner, since she has served the respondents continuously for 36 years or more, she is entitled to be regularized by the State Government. Further, she is entitled to get the benefit of half of her service period on full term basis towards pension, etc. 10. The respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 on the one part and the respondents No. 4 & 5 on the other part have filed their replies separately. The respondent No. 1,2&3, in the reply filed on 28.11.2018, have denied the claim of the petitioner of continuous service. According to them, the petitioner's service was terminated and she was out of engagement for quite some time and later on she was again engaged. 11. The respondent No. 1,2&3, in the reply filed on 28.11.2018, have denied the claim of the petitioner of continuous service. According to them, the petitioner's service was terminated and she was out of engagement for quite some time and later on she was again engaged. 11. In para 3(viii), of the said reply, it has been highlighted that 'based on the report of the Social Welfare Board it is fact that the service of the petitioner was broken several times prior to 11.12.2009 and hence fulfillment of condition of 10 years continuous service in the same post was not fulfilled and therefore, she was not competent on the date to be regularized and hence the proposal cannot be considered.' 12. The respondents No.4&5 have made an elaborate reply as the petitioner was engaged by them. According to them, the respondent No.4, Tripura State Social Welfare Board is an autonomous body and expenditure relating to the said State Board is shared in the ratio of 50:50 between the Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi and the Government of Tripura. The post sanctioning authority is the Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi. The respondents No.4&5 cannot create any post or fill up vacancy without approval from the Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi. According to them, the memorandum dated 04.09.2012 cannot apply in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the memorandum clearly provides that, it would apply to the Daily Rated Workers/ MRWs/ contingent workers/ casual etc. workers/consolidated fixed pay/fixed pay workers/ other than part time workers, contractual/contract basis workers/honorarium paid workers/workers engaged under SSA and other Schemes/Programmes, in different State PSUs and other autonomous bodies including Agartala Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat who were engaged, either prior to 31.03.2003 with or without prior concurrence of Finance Department on full time basis and have completed 10 years of service. The category of such persons would be considered for regularization, subject to the other conditions laid down in the said memorandum dated 04.01.2012 (Annexure-1 to the reply filed by the respondents No.4&5). 13. Reference has been made to the rules governing composition and functioning of the State Social Welfare Boards (Annexure-2 to the reply filed by the respondents No.4&5) where under paragraph 10(viii), it has been provided that the employees of the state board will be governed by the State Government Rules in terms of the service conditions. 13. Reference has been made to the rules governing composition and functioning of the State Social Welfare Boards (Annexure-2 to the reply filed by the respondents No.4&5) where under paragraph 10(viii), it has been provided that the employees of the state board will be governed by the State Government Rules in terms of the service conditions. The state board will also follow the State Government rules in case of other financial and administrative matters. 14. This aspect of the matter has come in conflict with the stand taken by the respondent No.4 & 5 in their reply inasmuch as, that provision has clearly laid down that the employees of the state board will be governed by the state government rules. 15. The respondents No.4&5 have produced the memorandum dated 01.11.1988 which is in respect of temporary absorption of the petitioner as the contingent peon. The memorandum dated 01.02.1989 is the engagement letter of the petitioner as the contingent peon of Khowai Border Area Project with stipulation of tenure from 01.02.1989 to 05.02.1989. 16. The memorandum dated 13.03.1989 contains the absorption note of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 15.02.1989 to 31.03.1989. The memorandum dated 29.03.1989 contains engagement of the workers for the period from 01.03.1989 to 31.03.1989. The memorandum dated 02.05.1989 contains the order of engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon for the period from 09.05.1989 to 05.08.1989 and thereafter, it has been stipulated that the engagement of the petitioner would automatically stand terminated w.e.f. 05.08.1989 (afternoon). The memorandum dated 07.08.1989 contains the order of engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon for the period from 07.08.1989 to 03.11.1989 with similar stipulation that the engagement would stand terminated w.e.f. 03.11.1989 (afternoon). The memorandum dated 06.11.1989 contains the order of engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon for the period from 06.11.1989 to 02.02.1990 with stipulation of termination on 02.02.1990. The memorandum dated 05.02.1990 contains the order of engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon for the period from 05.02.1990 to 31.03.1990 with stipulation of termination on 31.03.1990 (afternoon). 17. The memorandum dated 11.04.1990 contains the engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 09.04.1990 to 06.04.1990 with stipulation of termination on 09.04.1990 (afternoon) and the memorandum dated 10.10.1990 contains the engagement of the petitioner for the period from 08.10.1990 to 04.01.1991 with stipulation of automatic termination on 04.01.1991(afternoon). 17. The memorandum dated 11.04.1990 contains the engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 09.04.1990 to 06.04.1990 with stipulation of termination on 09.04.1990 (afternoon) and the memorandum dated 10.10.1990 contains the engagement of the petitioner for the period from 08.10.1990 to 04.01.1991 with stipulation of automatic termination on 04.01.1991(afternoon). The memorandum dated 15.01.1991 contains the order of engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 07.01.1991 to 31.03.1991 with stipulation of termination on 31.03.1991 (afternoon). The memorandum dated 03.04.1991 contains the order of engagement of the petitioner as contingent peon from 02.04.1991 to 29.06.1991 with stipulation of termination on 29.06.1991 (afternoon). The memorandum dated 24.07.1991 contains the engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 01.07.1991 to 27.09.1991 with stipulation of termination on 27.09.1991 (afternoon). The memorandum dated 01.10.1991 contains the engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 30.09.1991 to 27.12.1991 with stipulation of termination on 27.12.1991 (afternoon). The memorandum dated 03.01.1992 contains the engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 30.12.1991 to 27.03.1992 with stipulation of termination on 27.12.1992 (afternoon). The memorandum dated 14.08.1996 contains the engagement of the petitioner as the contingent peon from 07.05.1996 to 01.10.1996 with stipulation of termination on 01.10.1996 (afternoon).....' 4. We have gone through the judgment and also have considered the submissions of the learned counsels. Having gone though the records and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge after considering all legal positions and the authorities, particularly, the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3); reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , held that the petitioner is entitled to the following reliefs which reads as under: '.......41. Having appreciated the rival contentions and the records so produced, the following declaration and directions are made by this Court to be strictly complied: a) The petitioner had completed 10 years of continuous service till 10.04.2006 when Uma Devi (3) was pronounced by the Apex Court. b) The mechanical breaks and the intermittent engagement as DRW are to be treated as continuity in the service so far the petitioner is concerned. c) Since the petitioner has attained the superannuation her pay and allowances be determined notionally w.e.f 10.04.2006 till her retirement but the petitioner be paid the pension on adding 50% of the past service from the date of her regularization, i.e. 10.04.2006. c) Since the petitioner has attained the superannuation her pay and allowances be determined notionally w.e.f 10.04.2006 till her retirement but the petitioner be paid the pension on adding 50% of the past service from the date of her regularization, i.e. 10.04.2006. Thus, the petitioner shall be entitled to regular pension like the State government employees inasmuch as the rules governing composition and functioning of the State Social Welfare Boards provides that the employees of the State Board will be governed by the State government rules, in so far their service conditions are concerned, the petitioner will be entitled to get the pension and other retiral benefits in terms of the relevant rules, including Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as adopted in the State of Tripura and amended from time to time. d) The arrear of pension and other retiral benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date when the petitioner shall serve a copy of this order to the respondents......' 5. We do not find any ground to interfere with the aforesaid findings and reliefs given by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and therefore, the same stands dismissed. 6. The appellant- State is directed to enforce the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.06.2019 as aforestated within a period of 6(six) weeks from today.