WP(C) 4524/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarania, learned Counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner. By the instant application, a review of the order dated 21/8/200 9 passed in WP(C) 4524/2008 has been sought for. The opposite party writ petitioner has approached this Court wit h the aforementioned writ petition complaining against delay in regularisation o f his services as Section Assistant in the establishment of the Executive Engine er, Cachar Investigation (W.R.) Division, Badarpur. According to the opposite pa rty/writ petitioner, he was initially appointed as a workcharged Khalashi vide o rder dated 29/6/1978 whereafter his services were brought under the regular cadr e by order dated 20/2/1984. He was thereafter promoted temporarily as a Workchar ged Section Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 470/--800/-. He pleaded inaction o n the part of the respondents in regularisation of his services while favourably dealing with similarly situated workcharged and Muster roll workers in the same establishment. In the affidavit of the Executive Engineer, Cachar Investigation (W.R.), Division, Badarpur, it was disclosed that the name of the petitioner/op posite party had been along with few other similarly situated employees forwarde d by the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department vide letter No. CEWR(E)102/16 /28 DATED 5/3/2007 for regularisation of his services as Section Assistant. The learned Counsel for the respondents also responded to a query of this Court by d isclosing that the process would be completed within a period of six months. It was in the above premise that this Court disposed of the writ petition with a di rection to the concerned State respondents to undertake the process in connecti on therewith and take it to its logical end within a period of six months . According to the review applicants in the face of the determinat ion made by a Full Bench of this Court in WP(C) 6222/2003 (Jitendra Kalita and o thers versus State of Assam and others) they find themselves in a quandary to pr oceed further on the proposal for regularisation of the petitioner’s services in terms of the order dated 21/8/2009 passed in WP(C) 4524/2008. A plain reading o f this order dated 21/8/2009 does not indicate any direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners thereby. It was in the context of the process already initiated vide letter No. CEWR(E)102/16/38 dated 5/3/2007 of the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, that the petition was closed wit h a direction to the concerned State respondents to complete the process within a time frame fixed by taking it to its logical end. In that view of the matter, this Court does not consider it essential to review and/or reconsider the said o rder. The application stands closed. No costs.