JUDGMENT S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - The present writ appeal came to be filed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 217 of 2019. 2. Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-appellants as well as Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The factual context of the case is as under:- (i) Respondent, Debasish Majumder was initially appointed as an Accountant on 19.02.2004 on contractual basis under the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), North Tripura at Kailashahar, as it was then. His tenure was later extended till 06.03.2006. (ii) Thereafter, in 2005, an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various posts on deputation by employees holding analogous posts in Government departments/PSUs/ Stenographers' Service came to be issued on 21.12.2005 under Advertisement No. 2/2005 by Women's Polytechnic run by the Society for Women's Polytechnic, Agartala which was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. (iii) The respondent who is the original writ petitioner applied for the post of Accountant in response to the said advertisement and he was selected for the said post. By Order No. F.1(22)W.POLY. SOCIETY/PPIU/2005/1819-30 dated 02.01.2006, he was engaged as an Accountant on deputation under the Society for Women's Polytechnic, Agartala in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,000-10,300/-. Pursuant to his engagement as an Accountant in the Society for Women's Polytechnic, the Project Director, DRDA by his order dated 17.01.2006 (Annexure R/1 to the writ petition) released him from DRDA, North Tripura in order to enable him to join his new posting in the Women's Polytechnic. Accordingly, the writ petitioner (respondent herein) joined his new assignment in the Women's Polytechnic on 20.01.2006 by submitting his joining report (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). (iv) Thereafter, by a Notification under No. F.2(374)-DHE/GTCA/07(L)/3945(16) dated 24.03.2010, the Government of Tripura, Department of Education (Higher) had taken over Women's Polytechnic, Hapania with all its assets and liabilities with effect from 01.04.2010 and conferred upon the Women's Polytechnic, Hapania the status of a State Government technical institute under the Education (Higher) Department. As a fall out of the said notification, the registered society for Women's Polytechnic was dissolved with immediate effect. (v) Pursuant to the said notification dated 24.03.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), writ petitioner's service was migrated and continued in the capacity of Accountant under Education (Higher) Department. As a fall out of the said notification, the registered society for Women's Polytechnic was dissolved with immediate effect. (v) Pursuant to the said notification dated 24.03.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), writ petitioner's service was migrated and continued in the capacity of Accountant under Education (Higher) Department. Since he was not regularized in the post, the writ petitioner (respondent herein) after rendering service over a considerable period of time, submitted several representations to the Director, Higher Education, Government of Tripura urging to regularize him in the post of Accountant. But, instead of regularizing him in service, the State Government in the Department of Higher Education by issuing Memorandum No. F.7(235)-DHE/NG/2006(L-2)/1131(4) dated 25.08.2014, engaged him as an Accountant afresh on contractual basis for a period of one year on a consolidated pay of Rs. 24,256/- with effect from 01.04.2014 and he was posted in Women's Polytechnic, Agartala. By a subsequent memorandum dated 01.07.2015, he was re-engaged as an Accountant on contract basis for a further period of 11 months. Aggrieved thereby, he approached this Court by seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in WP(C) No. 349/2015 claiming absorption in the post of Accountant in regular scale of pay. 4. The learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 04.03.2016 passed in WP(C) 349/2015 (Annexue-10 to the writ petition) directed the State Authority to consider for absorption of the petitioner in the post of Accountant in regular scale of pay without delay. The order of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as under:- '14. Having regard to all these material facts, this court is of the considered opinion that the respondents shall consider the petitioner for absorption in the post of the Accountant in the regular scale of pay without delay. The respondents are directed to complete the said exercise within a period of 3 (three) months from today. Till the petitioner is absorbed he shall be allowed to continue as the Accountant on contractual basis.' 5. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the writ petitioner was absorbed to the post of Accountant under the Directorate of Higher Education with retrospective effect in regular scale of pay in Pay Band-2 of Rs. 5,700-24,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the writ petitioner was absorbed to the post of Accountant under the Directorate of Higher Education with retrospective effect in regular scale of pay in Pay Band-2 of Rs. 5,700-24,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- under Memorandum No. F.5(381)-DHE/PLG/16 dated 05.12.2016 (Annexure-11) on condition that he would complete necessary accounts training within 2 years from the date of absorption. The petitioner joined the said post on 12.12.2016. 6. The petitioner had, after his regularization, approached this Court by filling miscellaneous application bearing IA No. 01/2018 (in WP(C) No. 349/2015) for treating him as absorbed retrospectively from the date of deputation on contractual engagement as Accountant in the Women's Polytechnic. 7. Learned Single Judge instead of issuing any direction, reverted the matter to the State-respondents for consideration whether the absorption of the petitioner could be allowed retrospectively from the date of his contractual engagement as an Accountant on deputation. By issuing memorandum under No. F.7(235)-DHE/NG/2018(L)/2624(2) dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition), the Director of Higher Education, [Appellant No. 2], rejected such prayer holding that the absorption will have its effect from 13.12.2016. 8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the State-appellants declining to absorb him in the regular scale of pay with retrospective effect from the date of his engagement on deputation as an Accountant in Women's Polytechnic, the respondent approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 217 of 2019 seeking the following reliefs: (i) To set aside the memorandum dated 07.12.2016, Annexure 15 to the writ petition and to direct the State-respondents to treat petitioner's absorption w.e.f. 20.01.2006 for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for grant of his pension and other retiral benefits; and (ii) To count his past service w.e.f. 20.01.2006 with all financial benefits which may accrue due to absorption w.e.f. 20.01.2006. 9. In the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge, Ms. S. Deb. (Gupta), learned counsel representing the present respondent (original writ petitioner) relied on the following Memorandum dated 25.02.2010 of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura regarding counting of past services of Contingent Workers/DRWs/Casual Workers towards calculation of their pension: 'NO. F. 8(3)-FIN (G)/78 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (General Section) February 25, 2010 MEMORANDUM Subject: Counting of service of Contingent Workers/DRWs/Casual Workers towards pension etc. F. 8(3)-FIN (G)/78 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (General Section) February 25, 2010 MEMORANDUM Subject: Counting of service of Contingent Workers/DRWs/Casual Workers towards pension etc. References have been received from different Departments seeking clarification about continuation of applicability of memo No. F. 8(3)-FIN(G)/78, dated 16.08.1978 and memo of even number dated 19.07.1982 regarding counting of half the period of continuous service rendered by Contingent Workers/Copyist/Typist/Extra Mohafars etc who were paid from 'wages' on full time basis, towards pension and in respect of DRWs/Contingent Workers/Monthly Rated Workers/Casual Workers working on full time basis and subsequently regularized as per Government decision. [2] After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor has been pleased to decide that the benefit of counting of half of the period of continuous service rendered by the DRWs/Contingent Workers/Monthly Rated Workers/Casual Workers who were engaged on full time basis and paid from 'Wages' would be counted towards pension following their regularization with the approval of the Finance Department. The benefit provided under this circular will not have any relevance in declaration of employees as quasi permanent/permanent/counting of seniority/counting of period for the purpose of determining eligibility for extending benefit of CAS/ACP. (N. Darlong) Sd/- Illegible Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura.' 10. Ms. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel contended before the learned Single Judge that relying on the said memorandum, relief was given to the petitioner in the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) v. State of Tripura (judgment dated 08.10.2015 delivered in WP(C) No. 77/2015). It would be pertinent to reproduce hereunder the relevant extract of the said judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) which is as under: '11. It would also be pertinent to mention that the Central Government and the Government of Tripura have taken a decision that even half of the services rendered by an employee on daily wages shall be counted towards qualifying service. The person appointed on fixed pay basis is on a much better footing than a person appointed on daily wages and if half of the service rendered by a daily wages employee can be counted for determining his/her qualifying service, I see no reason why the full service rendered by a fixed pay employee should not be counted towards her qualifying service if this uninterrupted service is followed by regular service. 12. 12. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and it is directed that the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of her joining as School Mother on fixed pay basis pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 19-07-1990 till her regularisation shall be added to her regular service from 01-10-2007 till her superannuation on 03-11-2007 for calculating her pension and other retiral benefits. The State shall ensure that the pension is accordingly fixed and all retiral benefits be released in favor of the petitioner latest by 31st January, 2016 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner, le. 30-06-2013 till payment/deposit of this amount.' 11. Counsel of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) argued before the learned Single Judge that case of the present respondent was fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) and therefore, learned counsel urged before the learned Single Judge for providing same relief to the respondent (original writ petitioner). 12. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. on the other hand, argued before the learned Single Judge that in his earlier writ petition, the present respondent (original writ petitioner) never claimed counting of his past service as an Accountant on deputation on contractual basis in terms of Finance Department's Memorandum dated 25.02.2010. Therefore, his claim in the subsequent writ petition was barred by the principle of res judicata. The State-counsel also argued before the learned Single Judge that petitioner was purely on contractual employment for a particular period which was extended from time to time by issuing fresh letters of engagement until he was absorbed in service with regular scale of pay in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in WP(C) 349/2015. Therefore, he was not entitled to claim absorption in regular scale of pay with retrospective effect. 13. Therefore, he was not entitled to claim absorption in regular scale of pay with retrospective effect. 13. Having appreciated the submissions of the counsel representing the parties, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was entitled to the benefit of past services in terms of Finance Department's Memorandum dated 25.02.2010 read with the law espoused by this Court in the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) and accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the State authority (appellants) to absorb the petitioner in regular scale of pay with effect from 01.04.2010. Learned Single Judge made the following observation in the impugned judgment: '13. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the policy as espoused by the state government in the memorandum dated 25.02.2010, and the decision of this court in Mamata Rani Ray (Saha) (supra), this court is of the view that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of his past services, in terms of the memorandum dated 25.02.2010 read with the law decided by this Court in Mamata Rani Ray (Saha) (supra), from the date when the Institution was taken over by the State by virtue of the notification No. F.2(374)-DHE/GTCA/07(L)/3945(16) dated 24.03.2010 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) meaning from 01.04.2010. 14. The full period starting from 01.04.2010 be added in terms of the memorandum dated 25.02.2010 for pension and other retrial benefits and not for any other purpose. 15. Needless to say, that the order dated 07.12.2018 had been passed in a completely different perspective and as such there is no reason to interfere with the said order. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is partly allowed, and the other reliefs, as indicated above, stand dismissed.' 14. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the State-appellants have raised the same points which were argued by the State-counsel before the learned Single Judge. It is contended by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. that the petitioner was engaged purely on contractual basis and his engagement was regulated by the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the State-appellants have raised the same points which were argued by the State-counsel before the learned Single Judge. It is contended by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. that the petitioner was engaged purely on contractual basis and his engagement was regulated by the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment. His engagements were renewed from time to time under fresh engagement letters and moreover, the contractual appointment do not come within the purview of the Finance Department's Memorandum dated 25.02.2010 since the said memorandum has clearly catalogued the class of workers who are entitled to the benefit provided under the said memorandum. According to learned G.A. contractual engagement does not come within the purview of the said memorandum. The State-counsel has therefore argued before us that the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge based on Memorandum dated 25.02.2010 is erroneous which calls for interference in appeal. 15. Ms. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel of the respondent while opposing the contention of the State-counsel has vehemently argued that in similar circumstances Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) in WP(C) No. 77/2015 was given the benefit of absorption with retrospective effect in terms of Finance Department's memorandum dated 25.02.2010. The decision in Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) was never challenged by the State Government. Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) holds the field. Counsel has therefore argued that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 16. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel of the parties before us. We have also perused the entire materials placed before us. 17. Admittedly, the respondent (original writ petitioner) has been rendering service as an Accountant since his initial contractual appointment on 19.02.2004 in DRDA, North Tripura at Kailashahar. Term of his contractual appointment was then extended till 06.03.2006. Before the term came to end, he applied for the post of Accountant on deputation in Women's Polytechnic run by the Society for Women's Polytechnic in response to Advertisement No. 2/2005 dated 21.12.2005 and in due course, he was selected for the post and by order No. F.1(22)W.POLY.SOCIETY/PPIU/2005/1819-30 dated 02.01.2006, he was engaged as an Accountant on deputation under the Society for Women's Polytechnic, Agartala in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,000-10,300/-. 5,000-10,300/-. Since he was at that time engaged as an Accountant in DRDA, North Tripura, he was officially released from DRDA to join his new assignment. Accordingly, he joined Women's Polytechnic on 20.01.2006. 18. By a Notification dated 24.03.2010, the State Government had taken over Women's Polytechnic with all its assets and liabilities with effect from 01.04.2010 from the registered society which was running the said Women's Polytechnic and conferred the status of a State Government technical institute under the Education (Higher) Department on the said Women's Polytechnic. Since the State Government was reluctant to regularize the respondent (original writ petitioner) despite his migration to the Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, he approached the High Court and pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 349/2015, he was absorbed in regular scale of pay as an Accountant by the State Government under the Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura with effect from 05.12.2016. Petitioner further approached this Court by filing a review petition before the learned Single Judge seeking direction for his absorption with retrospective effect. The learned Single Judge reverted the matter to present appellant No. 2 for consideration. The State-appellant after reconsideration of the matter, rejected the claim of the respondent (original writ petitioner). Then the respondent approached this Court seeking absorption with effect from 20.01.2006 i.e. date on which he joined Women's Polytechnic on deputation after being selected through a regular selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2005 dated 21.12.2005. 19. Notification dated 25.02.2010 of the Finance Department clearly contemplates that half of the period of continuous service rendered by DRWs/Contingent Workers/Monthly Rated Workers/Casual Workers who were engaged on full-time basis and paid from 'wages' would be counted towards pension following their regularization with the approval of the Finance Department. In the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra), petitioner was a fixed-pay employee. In the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra), petitioner was a fixed-pay employee. While appreciating the Finance Department's memo dated 25.02.2010, in the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra), it was held by this Court that even though there was no specific mention of fixed-pay employees in the said memorandum, the person appointed on fixed-pay basis is on a much better footing than a person appointed on daily wages and if half of the service rendered by a daily wager can be counted for determination of his/her qualifying service for pension, there was no reason for not counting the full service rendered by a fixed-pay employee towards his/her qualifying service if the uninterrupted service was followed by a regular service. In the present case, the respondent (the original writ petitioner) has been rendering service as an Accountant in the Women's Polytechnic since 20.01.2006 without any break in service. Admittedly, he was selected for the post through a proper selection procedure against an advertisement issued on 21.12.2005. There is no dispute that he is working on full-time basis and he is being paid from 'wages'. Obviously, his uninterrupted service was followed by a regular service. 20. In these circumstances, we find no embargo in applying Finance Department's Memorandum dated 25.02.2010 to the case of the respondent (original writ petitioner). Moreover, his case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) v. State of Tripura (supra). 21. For the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Appellants are directed to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge within 3 (three) months from today. In terms of the above, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.