WP(C) 4768/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the three petitioners have praye d for a direction to the respondents to make payment of their arrear salary amou nting to Rs. 86,400/- for the period from 1998 to 2008. Further prayer made is t o absorb them against regular posts by way of regularization of their services. According to the petitioners they were appointed as casual emplo yee (Grade-IV) at a fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month. While the petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the year 1994, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed in the year 1996. Similarly the petitioner No. 3 was also appointed in the year 1996. On per usal of their engagement orders (Annexure-A series), it is seen that they were a ppointed for a limited duration. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a wr it petition being WP(C) No. 8143/2002 claiming salary from June, 1998. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to make an enquiry regarding engagement of the petitioners and if they were found to have b een engaged for any particular period to pay them their salary. After the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners have once aga in filed the instant writ petition claiming salary from 1998. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it has b een stated that the services of the petitioners were not extended beyond 30.9.19 98. However, so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, after disengagement on 30.9.1998, he was again engaged for four months with effect from 1.6.1999. It h as been denied that the petitioners have been serving under the respondent conti nuously and thus they are not entitled to salary from 1998. The aforesaid categorical stand of the respondents in their affi davit has not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any affidavit-in-re ply. If the petitioners were disengaged in the year 1998, there was n o question of payment salary to them for the period beyond 1998. This Court exer cising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any direction for regularization of services of the petitioners dehorse recruitment rules. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner s and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear th at if the petitioner No. 2 has not been paid his salary for the aforementioned p eriod of four months, he should be paid admissible salary for the said period. Writ petition is dismissed.