Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010003602026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1767/2026 SRI BIJEN RABHA AND ANR S/0- BALIN RABHAVILL- BETAGAON,PS- GORESWAR,PO-NAOKATA,DIST- TAMULPUR,BTC,ASSAM.PIN-781364. 2: UTPAL KALITA S/O PRASANNA KALITA VILL. PUB NAOKATA P.S. GORESWAR P.O. NAOKATA DIST. TAMULPUR BTC ASSAM PIN 78136 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTEDBRBY TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARYBRVO.39454BR1ENTTO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATIONBRDEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 03 DIST. KAMRUP (M) 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUKLA SUB DIVISION (IRRIGATION) GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM. 4:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUKLA SUB DIVISION (IRRIGATION) GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : K. KALITA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, BTADC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 27.03 .2026 Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department and Ms. B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTADC. 2. The claim of the writ petitioners is for a direction to regularize their services which they have been rendering as a Muster Roll Workers since 1992 in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Sukia Sub-Division (Irrigation) Department, Goreswar, Baksa. In spite of rendering continuous services without any blame or blemish, the case of the petitioners has not been considered for regularization. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of the Government Office Memorandum No. FEC(II)49/2010/118, dated 16.06.2012 the resolutions were taken (1) no more regularization of services of Worked Charged, Muster Roll or similarly placed workers can be undertaken by the state Page No.# 3/4 Government even if such workers were engaged prior to 01-04-1993 and rendered continuous service without break; and (2) no more regularization can be undertaken by supernumerary post for one day in respect of those work charged and Muster Roll workers who were engaged prior to 01-04-1993 but died or attained the age of superannuation after rendering continuous services uninterruptedly. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meantime, a Division Bench of this court had rendered a Judgment dated 8th June, 2017 passed in W.A. 45/2014 rendered in the case of State of Assam –vs Upen Das and Others. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits granted by this Court in Upen Das (Supra). Paragraph 22 of the Judgment of Upen Das (Supra) is reads as under:- “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. 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 Page No.# 4/4 Charged workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years (not in sanctioned post) with effect from 1.8.2017.” - 6. The learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the prayer made. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that since similar reliefs are sought for and since the petitioners are also Muster Roll Workers, the writ petition can be closed, directing the concerned respondents to carry out the directions in terms of the Judgment and Order passed in W.A. 45/2014 rendered in the case of State of Assam -vs- Upen Das and Others. 8. It is, however, made clear that before any orders are passed in terms of the directions contained in Upen Das (Supra), the respondent authorities are entitled to carry out a proper verification to find out if the petitioners are still entitled to the claims as prayed for. 9. In the event, they are entitled, the benefits be conferred in terms of the directions contained in Upen Das (Supra). 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant