JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General who is also the Standing Counsel for the Finance Department appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5; Ms. M.D. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions upon the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f 22.07.2005; pay arrears of the salary and also make payment of the pension to the petitioner. 3. The brief facts as would appear from the materials on record are that the petitioner was engaged as a Muster-Roll worker in the office of the respondent No. 3 on 01.08.1993. It is the case of a petitioner that the petitioner thereupon rendered his service sincerely without any blemish from any quarter till his retirement on 31.12.2024. 4. It is the further case of petitioner that by virtue of the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Sri Upen Das reported in (2017) 4 GLR 493, the petitioner received the minimum of the pay scale. The pleadings further show that after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2024, he submitted an application on 22.10.2025 requesting the concerned Respondent Authorities that as he had given 32 years of service without any break, w.e.f. 01.08.1993 to 31.12.2024, he be paid the gratuity benefit in terms with Rule 153(2) of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969. 5. The question therefore arises, as to whether, in the present facts, it would be permissible on the part of this Court to grant the reliefs as has been sought for by the petitioner. 6. It is relevant to take note of that on 07.10.2005, an Office Order was issued wherein it was mentioned about creation of Grade-IV posts in the Inland Water Transport Department, and those Muster- Roll workers who have been engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and were still working continuously without any break were regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005 until further orders subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner, having been appointed on 01.08.1993 was not regularized. The petitioner, having been appointed on 01.08.1993 was not regularized. However, the petitioner did not challenge the said actions of the respondents then to limit regularization to those Muster-Roll workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993. 7. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 categorically held that the High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms with the constitutional scheme. It was further observed that a temporary employee cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment and merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of appointment, he/she would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance. Paragraph 43 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ 43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as “litigious employment” in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.” 8. It is also very pertinent to mention that nothing has been stated in the instant writ petition that the petitioner in the instant case was engaged w.e.f. 01.08.1993 after carrying out a proper selection process. 9. It is also very pertinent to mention that nothing has been stated in the instant writ petition that the petitioner in the instant case was engaged w.e.f. 01.08.1993 after carrying out a proper selection process. 9. This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra). From the facts mentioned in the said judgment, it appears that on 16.06.2012, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Finance Department, Government of Assam, stating inter alia that there shall be no further regularization of services of Muster-Roll/Work Charged or similarly placed workers, even if such workers were engaged prior to 01.04.1993. Various petitioners challenged the said Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2012 by filing writ petitions. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 quashed the said Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2012. It is under such circumstances, the matter reached the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 45/2014. The learned Division Bench of this Court rejected the plea of regularization. However, directed the State Government to pay minimum of the pay scale to Muster-Roll/Work Charged workers and similarly placed employees working more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) w.e.f. 01.08.2017. Paragraph Nos. 18 to 22 of the judgment in the case of Upen Das (supra) being relevant are reproduced herein under: “18. The Supreme Court in Umadevi case, but for exception carved out in paragraph 53 of the decision, has issued a Mandamus that henceforth, no regularization shall be made bypassing the constitutional requirement or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the Constitutional scheme. And, after 10.4.2006, on which date, judgment of Umadevi was delivered, the State Government has not regularized the services of any Muster Roll/Work Charged worker or an employee of similar category whose appointment was either illegal or was not made on duly sanctioned vacant of similar category whose appointment was post. And, after 10.4.2006, on which date, judgment of Umadevi was delivered, the State Government has not regularized the services of any Muster Roll/Work Charged worker or an employee of similar category whose appointment was either illegal or was not made on duly sanctioned vacant of similar category whose appointment was post. Also what is explained by the Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesari is that if, for some reason, the employees, who were entitled to the benefit of paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi were not considered, they will not lose their right to be considered for regularization merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases or because the six months period mentioned therein has expired. In paragraph 53 of the decision in Umadevi, it is held in unequivocal terms that only irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts, who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts without cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals be considered for regularization as one-time measure within six months. According to the State Government, not one respondent was either appointed on a sanctioned vacant post or is working against a sanctioned vacant post. And, it is for these reasons, the State Government, despite having framed a policy to regularize the Muster Roll, Work Charged employees working prior to 1.4.1993, sought leave of this Court to implement the same in MC No. 597/2012, which was rightly declined by the Division Bench, vide order dated 27.3.2012. The learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that respondents were not appointed on duly sanctioned vacant posts and are also not working on duly sanctioned posts, while directing the State Government to consider their cases for regularization. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, not in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court in Umadevi case and hence, cannot be sustained. After Umadevi case, the State Government also cannot create posts to regularize the services of Muster Roll/Work Charged employees as none of them are working against sanctioned posts. And for filling up the sanctioned vacant posts or newly created posts, the State will have to adopt a normal procedure, of recruitment by giving opportunity to all qualified and eligible persons to participate in the recruitment process. 19. And for filling up the sanctioned vacant posts or newly created posts, the State will have to adopt a normal procedure, of recruitment by giving opportunity to all qualified and eligible persons to participate in the recruitment process. 19. It is true that the State Government took a Cabinet decision on 22.7.2005 to regularize the services of Muster Roll/Work Charged workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.1993 and pursuant to which, the State Government regularized the services of large number of such workers after creating posts. The respondents, therefore, also claim for the same benefit of Cabinet decision by invoking the theory of legitimate expectation and taking a plea that they cannot be subjected to discrimination with those similarly placed workers, whose sevices have been regularized. Even this issue submission has been answered in Umadevi case against the respondents. Its relevant paragraph 47 reads as under:- "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” 20. In the above quoted paragraph 47 of the decision in Umadevi case, the Supreme Court has clearly held that when a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection. According to the Supreme Court, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. The Supreme Court has also held that the State cannot constitutionally make a promise to such employees for making their services permanent. And, as mentioned above, after Umadevi case, the State Government has not regularized any similarly situated workers notwithstanding the Cabinet decision and the statements made before the Court regarding regularization of their services. We, therefore, reject the respondents' plea of legitimate expectation and discrimination. 21. Lastly, the respondents have cited decisions of the Supreme Court in Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, Malathi Das vs. Suresh, (2014) 13 SCC 249 and Yashwant Arjun More vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 13 SCC 264 to convince us that even after Umadevi case, the Supreme Court has directed for regularization even by creating posts although the employees were not working on sanctioned posts. But these decisions are on different facts and the Supreme Court itself has held that the ratio decidendi of Umadevi case was not applicable to them. In the case of Nihal Singh VS. State of Punjab (supra), Special Police Officers were appointed under Section 17 of the Police Act to meet the law and order problem. The appointments of Special Police Officers were made in accordance with the statutory procedure contemplated under the Act, but their services were not being regularized on the ground that there were no sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court held that since the initial appointments of such Special Police Officers was made legally under a statute, it cannot be categorized as irregular much less illegal appointment and therefore the principles laid down in Umadevi case were not applicable. It is in this fact situation the Supreme Court directed the State Government to absorb the Special Police Officers by creating necessary posts. Besides this, in Nihal Singh the Supreme Court was not dealing with the issue of regularization of Muster Roll/Work Charged employees like the respondents. In Malathi Das vs. Suresh (supra) the Supreme Court in a Contempt Petition merely directed the authorities to comply with the order of the High Court to regularize the employees. Besides this, in Nihal Singh the Supreme Court was not dealing with the issue of regularization of Muster Roll/Work Charged employees like the respondents. In Malathi Das vs. Suresh (supra) the Supreme Court in a Contempt Petition merely directed the authorities to comply with the order of the High Court to regularize the employees. The High Court order for regularization was admittedly passed and affirmed by the Supreme Court much prior to the decision of Umadevi. The decision of Umadevi was thus clearly not applicable in the case of Malathi Das. In Yashwant Arjun More vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) also non salaried copyists were working in the Revenue and Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra continuously for 10 or more years and they could not apply for regularization because neither the required examination was held by the Department nor the Staff Selection Board was constituted. The State Government therefore to overcome its lapse decided to absorb such non-salaried copyists on available vacant posts subject to their making applications and holding required educational qualifications. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that non-salaried copyists were victims of the lapse of State Government and held that the ratio of judgment in Umadevi cannot be invoked for denying them the benefit of decision of the State Government to absorb them through a selection process. In the case at hand, there is no provision of holding examination of the respondents by any Selection Board for the purposes of their regularization and hence, the State Government cannot be blamed for any lapse. Hence, the decision cited by the respondents do not have them. 22. It is, however, heartening to learn that the State Government has agreed not to terminate the Muster Roll, Work Charged and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) till their normal retirement, except on disciplinary ground or on ground of criminal offences. The State Government has also agreed to enlist such employees in Health and Accidental and Death Insurance Scheme, which will be prepared in consultation with the State Cabinet. We appreciate this positive stand of the State Government taken as welfare measures for the betterment and security of the employees, in question. We, accordingly, direct the State Government to implement the measures without further delay. We appreciate this positive stand of the State Government taken as welfare measures for the betterment and security of the employees, in question. We, accordingly, direct the State Government to implement the measures without further delay. Besides this, we, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017)1 SCC 148 , also direct the State Government to pay minimum of the pay scale to Muster Roll workers, Work Charged workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) with effect from 1.8.2017.” 10. The petitioner herein admittedly has received the minimum of the pay scale as per the directions as laid down in the case of Upen Das (supra) . The petitioner thereupon retired on 31.12.2024 and after almost 10 months submitted a representation on 22.10.2025 seeking gratuity. The said representation being not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as aforesaid. 11. It is the opinion of this Court that in view of the judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) as well as Upen Das (supra) , no directions can be passed to grant regularization of the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.07.2005, taking into account that if such directions are passed, it would go against the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra). 12. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of UP & Another reported in ( 2025) SCC OnLine SC 1735 . The facts and the issue involved before the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) , the appellants therein were engaged by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission between 1989 and 1992 and the said Commission resolved to create Class-III and Class-IV posts and have sought the sanction of the State Government. It further appears that upon reiteration by the said Commission seeking sanction of certain posts on account of administrative exigencies, the State of U.P. rejected the said proposal citing financial constraints. It is under such circumstances, the writ petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 2000 for quashing of the order of rejection of the proposal for creation of posts and further seeking a mandamus upon the respondents to sanction/create 14 posts in Class- III and Class-IV for the Commission. It is in those facts, the judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) On the other hand, from the present facts, it would show that the petitioner was engaged on 01.08.1993 without following any selection process. Thereupon, on the basis of an order dated 07.10.2005, various Muster-Roll workers working in the establishment of the Inland Water Transport Department, were regularized who were appointed prior to 01.04.1993 and continued to render service as on 07.10.2005. The petitioner at that point of time did not think it fit for challenging the said decision to not regularize any person appointed after 01.04.1993. It further appears that an Office Memorandum was issued on 16.06.2012 by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam wherein it was mentioned that there shall be no further regularization of services of Work Charged/Muster- Roll or similarly situated workers, even if such workers were appointed prior to 01.04.1993. 13. The petitioner then also did not challenge the said Office Memorandum. Various petitioners, as stated above, challenged the said Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2012 and the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court though had set aside the said Office Memorandum, but the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra) was not inclined to interfere with the Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2012. The pleas for regularization as made by the various petitioners in Upen Das (supra) were also turned down. What was granted by the learned Division Bench was only the minimum of the pay scale to those persons who were appointed 10 years prior to 01.08.2017. The petitioner herein availed the said benefit of the minimum of the pay scale and thereupon retired on 31.12.2024. What was granted by the learned Division Bench was only the minimum of the pay scale to those persons who were appointed 10 years prior to 01.08.2017. The petitioner herein availed the said benefit of the minimum of the pay scale and thereupon retired on 31.12.2024. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the facts of the present case cannot be applied to the facts in the case of Dharam Singh (supra). Consequently, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case which can be entertained. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.