WP(C) 2593/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. D.A. Kayum, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, l earned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Heard also Ms. A . Verma, learned counsel, for the respondent No.2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No.6, namely, District & Sessions Judge, District Consumers Redressal Forum, Darrang, Mangaldoi, as a Con tingency Menial, on a consolidated pay of Rs.1800/- per month, on 24.07.2003 and was continued to allow to serve in the same manner till 31.03.2011, his pay hav ing been enhanced to a sum of Rs.2100/- per month with effect from March, 2006. The petitioner’s grievances are two fold, namely, (i) that the petitioner’s serv ice shall be directed to be regularized, and (ii) that he shall be directed to b e paid his dues inasmuch as he has not been paid any sum of money since the date of his engagement as Contingency Menial. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.6, namely, District & Sessions Judge, Distric t Consumers Redressal Forum, Darrang, Mangaldoi, has repeatedly written to the G overnment for sanction of a post of Grade-IV, because the establishment needs su ch a post. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that t he petitioner knew the nature of his appointment on the very day, when he was en gaged as a Contingency Menial. Mere length of period of service cannot and has n ot vested in the petitioner the right to demand creation of a post. This apart, no right of the petitioner has been infringed inasmuch as the question as to whe ther the post of Grade-IV is necessary or not is a question to be decided by the respondents and not by the petitioner. Even if a Grade-IV post is sanctioned, t here is no mandate in law to appoint the petitioner against such a post, because an appointment to a sanctioned post would require a due selection process to be followed. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner has no right to clai m either regularization of his service against a non-existent post or creation o f a post of Grade-IV and his regularization against such a post. The petitioner is, however, entitled to receive, and must be paid, his dues since the date of h is engagement as Contingency Menial inasmuch as having realised work, on the bas is of the promise made for payment of money, the respondents cannot, as a State, deny to the petitioner payment of his dues. What is also important to bear in mind is that the Department of Finance , Govt. of Assam, has issued a Circular prohibiting engagement of Contingency Me nial in any Government establishment since after 01.04.1994. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, w hile the petitioner’s prayer for rescinding or setting aside the order, dated 02 .03.2011, whereby his service has been terminated and also his prayer for regula rization of his service and/or creation of post are hereby declined, the respond ents, particularly, respondents No.1 and 2, are hereby directed to examine the p etitioner’s grievances with regard to non-payment of his dues and whatever sum(s ) of money are found entitled to receive by the petitioner, the same shall be ma de available to him. The whole exercise, so directed, shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the r espondent No.1, namely, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Civil Suppli es & Consumer Affairs Department, Dispur, Guwahati. The petitioner may furnish t o the respondent No.1, namely, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Dispur, Guwahati, a certified copy of t his order along with a copy of the writ petition and annexures thereto. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the respondents.