WA 216/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY (Amitava Roy,J) Heard Mr Islam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Adhikari, learned State counsel for the official respondents. The appellant/writ petitioner, a Grade IV employee with 48 Assa m Naval Unit, NCC, Guwahati under the Directorate of Sports and Youth Welfare De partment, Assam is before this Court for redressal of his grievance pertaining t o the denial of increments and other service benefits of a regular staff. The c hallenge of the appellant/ writ petitioner in WP( C) No.1063/2009 to the above effect having failed, he is before this Court. The appellant’s pleaded version in brief is that being appointed on temporary basis as a Sweeper in the office of the Commanding Officer, 48 Ass am Naval Unit, NCC, Guwahati in the scale of pay of Rs.370/- to 470/- per month for the period from 1.7.1985 to 28.2.1986 against an existing retirement vacanc y, he joined the post. He thereafter participated in a selection process initi ated by a advertisement and on being selected was allowed to continue in the sa id capacity on and from 1.3.86. He has asserted continuity of his service since then till date. Though, meanwhile communications have been exchanged for provid ing him with regular appointment, no effective step has been taken in that rega rd and the appellant/writ petitioner has complained that though he is rendering unblemished services without any break since 1986, he has not yet been sanction ed the increments and other allowances as admissible to a regular employee. The respondents in their affidavit while admitting the appoint ment of the appellant/writ petitioner as a Sweeper on purely temporary basis fr om 1.7.85 to 28.2.86 have contended that his continuance thereafter at the inst ance of the Commanding Officer, 48 Assam Naval Unit, NCC, Guwahati was without t he prior approval of the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, Assam who is the appointing authority. The respondents have therefore dismissed the appellant’s claim for regular service benefits like increments and other allowances etc. Mr Islam while reiterating the above has argued with special r eference to the letter issued in the month of June,2000( Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the compilation( Annexure-6 to the writ petition) disclosing th e results of the aforementioned selection that the petitioner in the facts and c ircumstances of the case is entitled to the claim of regularization of his service and all conseq uential benefits. Mr Adhikari, in reply has argued that as admittedly no order ap pointing the appellant/writ petitioner on regular basis is on record or had bee n issued at any earlier point of time, no direction for regularization of his s ervice ought to be granted. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts we are of the opinion that this is a fit case, having reg ard to the length of continuous service rendered by the petitioner and the sel ection in his favour as claimed by him that the respondents ought to consider his claim for regularization of his service in accordance with law. To facilitat e this exercise, the appellant would submit a detailed representation before t he Director of Sports and Youth welfare, Assam through the Commanding Officer, 48 Naval Unit, NCC, Guwahati. If such a representation is filed, the responden ts particularly, the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 as aforementioned would take up for consideration the same and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. It i s expected that while deciding on the appellant’s representation the authority concerned would bear in mind the background of the duration of his service and the claim of selection made by him. The process as ordered by this Court should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs.