WP(C) 9540/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. H.M. Phukan, the learned Government Advocate representing the State responde nts. The petitioners served as Muster Roll workers but their services were dis-contin ued in the March, 1994. They seek direction of their re-engagement as Muster Rol l workers and also for their regularization against substantive vacancies. Ms. H.M. Phukan, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioners have n o enforceable right to seek reinstatement as Muster Roll workers and since their services were terminated nearly 18 years ago, direction can’t now be passed for their reinstatement. Bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner were Muster Roll workers who were d isengaged and out of job since last nearly 2 decades, I feel that direction shou ldn’t be given for their re-engagement as Muster Roll Labourers. Their engagemen t will depend on the requirement of the department and in my view, It would be i nappropriate to direct re-engagement of the petitioners without knowing about th e department’s requirement and also the financial implications. Accordingly I see no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.