WP(C) 4086/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE TMR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner .Also heard Ms A Deka, learned Standing Counsel, P.W. Department . Mr Banik appears for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. Considering the controversy involved and as agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is being disposed of at t he motion stage itself. The grievance of the petitioners lies in a short compass. The petitione rs’ husbands were all muster roll workers having joined the service in 1979, 1987 and 1987 respectively in the Public Works Department, Govt.of Ass am, (hereinafter referred to as the ’Department’). They died in harness on 24.8 .1999, 14.5.1994 and 17.8.2001 having rendered their services for 20, 8 and 15 years respectively. Inspite of their requests they had not been regularized in their services during their life time. The petitioners have been denied thei r family pension on the ground that their husbands had not rendered the re gular qualifying service. The statements made in the petition are supported by an affidavit . A Full Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kalita and Ors Vs. State of Assam and Ors and a host of petitions accompanying it ,(2006) 1 GLT 654 , has impose d a prohibition on further regularization of Muster Roll/Work charged employees on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 20.4.1995 referred to therein. The Pubic Works and Finance Department of the State in view of the above had in WP( C) Nos 2186 and 2384/2007 involving a claim for regularization of the Work charged employees of the Public Works Depa rtment raised the plea of the said bar. This Court by order dated 21.5.2008 clar ified that the determination in Jitendra Kalita and Ors(Supra) was not intended to post any impediment for pursing the past practice of creation of supernum erary posts for the purpose of regularization of the worked charged /muster rol l employees who had either retired or died in that status for the purpose of g rant of pensionary benefits. It was further ruled that the said determination also does not have the effect of disturbing the regularizations already made. T he above departments were thereby granted liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with the said observations so as to ensure that the petitioners ther ein were paid such pensionary benefits to which they would be found entitled in law. Having regard to the assertion of the petitioners , the decision of th e Full Bench would thus not bar a consideration of the period of the service o f the husbands of the petitioner Nos 1 and 3 as Muster Roll Worker for the pens ionary benefits in terms 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 Chief Engineer, PWD ( Roads), Govt.of Assam, Guwahati to verify the service particulars of the petiti oner Nos 1 and 3 s’ husband and if the same are found to be correct, the s aid authority would include the period of service as Muster Roll workers for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits to them and after making the ne cessary declaration under the proviso to Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension ) Rules,1969 would release the family pension to the petitioners subject to thei r entitlements as otherwise prescribed by the relevant rules, executive instr uctions and guidelines . Since the petitioner Nos 1 and 3’s husband have expired, the State respondents would take necessary steps indicated hereinabove as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than six weeks from the d ate of receipt of the certified copy of this order. As the husband of the petiti oner No.2 had in all less than 10 years of service, her case for pensionary be nefits is rejected. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.