WP(C) 5636/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Ahm ed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6, Mr. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned cou nsel appearing for the respondent No.7. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The grievance of the petitioner lies in a short compass. The petitioner’ s husband was a Muster Roll Worker who had joined the service on 01.05.1985 in t he Irrigation Department. Her husband died in harness on 19.01.2004 before his r etirement. In spite of his repeated requests he had not been regularized in his services during his lifetime. The petitioner has been denied her family pension on the ground that her husband had not rendered the regular qualifying service. The statements made in the petition are supported by an affidavit. A full bench of this Court in Jitendra Kalita and others Vs. State of As sam and others and a host of petitions accompanying it, (2006)1 GLT 654, has imp osed a prohibition on further regularization of Muster Roll/Work charged employe es on the basis of the office Memorandum dated 14.12.1989 referred to therein. T he Public Works and Finance Department of the State in view of the above had in WP(C) Nos.2186/2007 and 2384/2007 involving a claim for regularization of the wo rk charged employees of the Public Works Department raised the plea of the said bar. This Court by order dated 21.05.2008 clarified that the determination in Ji tendra Kalita and others (supra) was not intended to post any impediment for pur suing the past practice of creation of supernumerary posts for the purpose of re gularization of the work charged/ Muster Roll employees who had either retired o r died in that status for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. It was fu rther ruled that the said determination also does not have the effect of disturb ing the regularizations already made. The above departments were thereby granted liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with the said observations so as to ensure that the petitioners therein were paid such pensionary benefits to wh ich they would be found entitled in law. Having regard to the assertion of the petitioner, the decision of the fu ll bench would thus not bar a consideration of the period of the service of the husband of the petitioner as Muster Roll Worker for the pensionary benefits in t erms of the decision of this Court in Kabiram Ranbongshi Vs. The State of Assam and ors. [(1997)1 GLT 589]. In that view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of with a d irection to the State respondents, more particularly the Irrigation Department, to verify the service particulars of the petitioner’s husband and if the same ar e found to be correct, the said authority would include the period of service as Muster Roll Worker for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits to her and after making the necessary declaration under the proviso to Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 would release the family pension to the pet itioner subject to other relevant rules, executive instructions and guidelines. Since the petitioner’s husband has expired, the State respondents would take nec essary steps indicated hereinabove as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of th is order. The petitioner stands disposed in the above terms. No cost.