Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010147962023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4659/2023 JOGEN BORDOLOI AND 2 ORS S/O- KAKHARAM BORDOLOI, VILL- BALIPUKHURI, P.O- DHURPANG, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2: ARUN BORAH S/O- LATE SONARAM BORAH VILL- LAHELIA P.O- LAHELIA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3: GOBIN SAIKIA S/O- RAM SAIKIA VILL- BALIPUKHURI P.O- DHURPAL DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 3:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER LAKHIMPUR CIRCLE (IRRIGHATION) NORTH LAKHIMPUR 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LAKHIMPUR DIVISION (IRRIGATION) NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 5:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BIHPURIA SUB- DIVISION (IRRIGATION) NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 6:JUNIOR ENGINEER IRRIGATION BIHPURIA SUB- DIVISION (IRRIGATION) NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS S A KHALIFA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 12/11/2025 Heard Ms. K Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N Upadhyay, learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department for the respondents. 2. The petitioners by way of instituting the present writ petition have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow them to continue in their services on fixed pay basis. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioners, herein, were engaged as Muster Roll Workers, prior to 01.04.1993. The petitioners were, thereafter, discharged from their services in the year 1994. Raising a grievance in this connection, the petitioners had approached this Page No.# 3/4 Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3824/1999. 4. This Court vide order dated 06.12.1999 had directed the respondents to examine whether the petitioners were appointed before the cut of date, i.e., 01.04.1993 and if it is found that the petitioners were so appointed, to take steps for their absorption on regular basis as per policy decision of the Government. 5. It is seen that after passing of the said order, the petitioners, herein, have not diligently pursued the matter and/or approached this Court by way of filing appropriate application, alleging violation of the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 06.12.1999. 6. It is seen that after the disposal of the earlier writ petition vide order dated 06.12.1999, the present writ petition was instituted only on 11.08.2023. 7. Ms. K Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that after passing of the order dated 06.12.1999 by this Court in WP(C) No. 3824/1999, the petitioners were not reinstated in their services. 8. The respondents have filed an affidavit in the matter and therein, they have submitted that the petitioners, herein, were only engaged as Muster Roll Workers for a limited period of time and they were discontinued from such engagement in the year 1994 and thereafter, they were never engaged as Muster Roll Workers. The respondents have submitted that the petitioners, herein, in view of the fact that they were not in service w.e.f. the year 1994, would not be entitled to have their services regularized. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents have further submitted that in view of the facts existing in the matter, the petitioners, herein, would also not be entitled to be extended with the benefits flowing from the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das reported in 2020 (5) Gau LT 605. 10. In view of the above factual position emanating in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, who came to be engaged prior to 01.04.1993 as Muster Roll Workers for a limited period and discontinued from their such engagement in the Page No.# 4/4 year 1994, cannot claim regularization of their services on account of discharge by them of duties for a period of less than one year. 11. The petitioners, herein, were not in continuous service even as of when the order dated 06.12.1999 was passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 3824/1999. Further, the petitioners, herein, having also not found to be serving, on the date when the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this case in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das (Supra) was passed, the petitioners, herein, also cannot be extended with the benefits flowing from the said decision. 12. In view of the above position and also noticing that the petitioners, herein, on being engaged as Muster Roll Workers for a limited period, admittedly came to be discharged from such engagement in the year 1994, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same accordingly stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant