WP(C) 4857/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA While the husband of the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as casual worker on 10.06.92, the other three petitioners were appointed as such on 06.04.93, 04 .02.91 and 21.12.93 respectively. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 died on 05 .06.94 while he was in casual employment. In paragraph-3 of the writ petition a statement has been made that the p etitioners had donated land to the department for implementation of Deep Tube We ll scheme and as per policy decision of the Govt. they are entitled to get emplo yment. The petitioners who were appointed as casual workers on the aforesaid da tes are no longer in service of the respondents from the year 2000. After long 1 0 years they have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition pray ing for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them in service. Further pra yer made is to set aside and quash Annexure-5 order dated 28.07.2000 by which ca sual service of the petitioners were dispensed with w.e.f. 28.07.2000. Thus, th e writ petition has been filed after more than 10 years of the said order. In support of the case of the petitioners towards explaining the delay, it has been stated that the petitioners had been making approaches to the respon dents for regularisation of their services and that the said respondents had ass ured all of them to do the needful. In this connection, the petitioners have ann exed the copies of the representations dated 01.09.95 and 20.03.96. On being pointed out the above aspects of the matter and also that since the petitioners had been appointed as casual employees, Ms. Borah, learned coun sel for the petitioners submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for fresh engagement. On the other hand, Dr. B. Ahme d, learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department submits that after long 10 ye ars of dispensation of service of the petitioners, there is no question of reeng agement of the petitioners. He further submits that reengagement of the casual w orkers cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it will have to be consid ered on need basis. Merely because the petitioners have been appointed as causal basis for s ome duration which came to an end in the year 2000, no mandamus can be issued f or their reinstatement in service. However, in the event of any future engagemen t, it will be open for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners. Writ petition is disposed of.