WP(C) 5545/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr PK Roy Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. I ha ve also heard Dr B Ahmed, the learned Standing counsel, Irrigation Department. The petitioners numbering 44 of them are aggrieved by the failure on the part of the State respondents to consider the regularization of their services as master-roll workers even after they have been working under the respondent au thorities since 1992. They were initially engaged by the respondent authorities in the year 1992 for flood damaged repairing works to be carried out at Goreswa r. Apparently, they have not been disengaged from their assignments as master-r oll workers claiming that they have legitimate expectation for regularization of their services keeping in view their long years of services. They had been fili ng a series of representations to the respondent authorities, but to no avail. The last of such representation was filed by them on 17.08.2011, which is found at (Annexure VI) to the writ petition. When this representation was also ignored by the respondent authorities, they are approaching this Court by this writ pet ition for appropriate relief. The writ petition is vehemently opposed by Dr Ahmed, by contending that the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary to the State of Karnataka vs. Uma De vi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has come in the way of the petitioners in seeking the relief of regularization sought for. He also points out that the scheme fo r regularization framed by the respondent authorities has now been struck down b y this Court and the respondent authorities are, therefore, handicapped from en tertaining any application for regularizing of master-roll workers. It is, ther efore, contended by the learned Standing counsel that the writ petition is devoi d of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. It is also point ed out by the learned Standing counsel that the petitioners have already been ou sted from their services in the year 1997 and are no longer continuing in their services as on today. This statement of the learned Standing counsel is strongly disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the light of the aforesaid controversy, this writ petition is dispose d of by directing the respondent authorities to ascertain as to whether the peti tioners are still in services on master-roll basis or not and thereafter take a decision on the basis of the representation dated 17.08.2011 filed by them, whic h is at Annexure VI to the writ petition. A copy of Annexure VI shall be submit ted by the petitioners to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Irrigation Depart ment within a fortnight from today. The entire exercise shall be completed with in a period of two months from the date of receipt a copy of the representation. No order as to costs.