WP(C) 6432/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI This is another case of non-disposal of the representation filed by a di fferent petitioners. Heard Mr PK Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr B Choud hury, the learned Standing counsel for the Health Department. The petitioners, except the petitioner No. 4, were appointed as casual e mployees in the year 1997, in the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar. In the year 2004, the respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 14.12.2004 at Annex ure 4 regularised the services of 15(fifteen) casual employees including the pet itioners for a period of four months with effect from 1.11.2004. A fresh propos al was made by the respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 25.01.2005 (Annexure 5) for regularisation of 15(fifteen) casual employees including the petitioners whi ch were found at Serial No. 12 to 15. However, only the casual employees whose names appeared in Serial Nos. 2 to 11 of the letter dated 25.01.2005 at Annexure 5 were regularised with effect from 28.02.2008. Aggrieved by this, the casual employees at Serial No. 1 (Shri Shekar Chandra Das) filed WP(C) No. 1382/2008 be fore this Court for regularisation of their services. The respondent No. 4 pers onally appeared before this Court on 15.09.2009 and admitted discrepancies in th e matter of such regularisation and that the regularisation of 10(ten) casual em ployees was done without going through the selection process. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 22.09.2001 regularised the service of the sai d Shekar Ch. Das with effect from 28.02.2008 on par with other regularised emplo yees whereupon this Court by the order dated 11.05.2010 closed the matter. Taki ng cue from this, the petitioners also promptly filed a joint representation to the respondent No. 4 on 11.10.2010 for extending similar benefits. A copy of t he representation is found at Annexure A-2 to the writ petition. Even after the lapse of more than ten months, the representation of the petitioners has not be en disposed of by the respondent No. 4, which prompted them to file the instant petition. The facts are virtually undisputed and are in pari material with the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C) 1382/208 whose service has now been regular ised. Under the circumstances, this writ petition need not be considered by thi s Court on merit. The ends of justice will be met by issuing an appropriate dir ection to the respondent No. 4. In the result, this writ petition stands dispos ed of by directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the representation dated 11. 10.2010 of the petitioners keeping in mind the regularisation of the ten casual employees referred to earlier and the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 1382/2008 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of th is order. For easy reference, the petitioners are directed to resubmit a copy o f their representation dated 11.10.2010 to the respondent No. 4 within a week fr om today. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.