WP(C) 615/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioners were engaged as Muster Roll Workers prior to the cut off date 1. 4.93 under the Directorate of Sericulture and are aggrieved by inadvertent dropp ing of their names during the process of regularization of 1127 Muster Roll Work ers. Mr. C. Barua, the learned counsel refers to the communication dated 23.2.06 (Ann exure-3) to show that the names of about 36 Muster Roll Workers including the pr esent 5 petitioners, were not considered for regularization because of a typogra phical error. It is also projected by Mr. Barua that the petitioners are on equa l footing with the other pre 1.4.1993 Muster Roll Workers, whose services were r egularized under the Govt. policy. I have heard Ms. VL Singh, the learned Addl Sr. Govt. Advocate and the learned s tanding counsel for the Finance Department. Ms. A Verma, refers to the counter affidavit of 29.6.2011 of the respondent No.3 to show that the proposal received by the Finance Department from the Handloom and Textile Department for regularization of the left out Muster Roll Workers co uld not be taken up at the relevant time, because of the restriction imposed by the High Court in the case of Jiten Kalita vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 ( 2) GLT 654. She further submits that Govt has already prepared a draft policy fo r regularization of the Muster Roll/Work charge/Casual workers who were engaged prior to 1.4.1993 and are serving without break. Bearing in mind the above stand and also reading the order of 2.11.2011 in the R eview Petition No. 88/2011 (Ratan Basumatary v s. State of Assam and ors.), I fe el that similar direction for regularization of the service of the petitioners s hould be given as their names were dropped due to typographical error, committed in the process of regularization of their similarly situated colleagues. Conseq uently, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitione r by giving them the same benefit as was given to their similarly situated colle agues in the Directorate of Sericulture. Case is ordered accordingly. The necessary exercise be completed expeditiously a nd preferably within 4 months from today. A copy of the order dated 2.11.2011 in Review Petition No. 88/2009 shall be kept in the case record.