WP(C) 3605/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam. Also heard Mr. P.C. Roy Medhi, learned counsel representing the opposite party, who was the writ pet itioner in WP(C) No.3605/2011. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.9.2011 directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner at par with the particular two inc umbents and others. The fact of the matter is that the services of the said incu mbents had been regularized w.e.f. 22.7.2005. However, the case of the petition er was left out due to wrong identification of the name. The petitioner was initially appointed as Muster Roll Worker on 20.6.198 8 in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer PWD (R&B), Maibong Sub-Divis ion, Maibong, N.C. Hills. After more than 10 years, he was transferred to Nalbar i Division by order dated 11.11.1998 and since then, he has been working there. In the year 2005, the services of some Muster Roll Workers at par with the writ petitioner had been regularized by order dated 7.10.2005. Although in the enclos ed list of Muster Roll Workers, the name of one Shri Bijoy Das had appeared, but according to the respondents, said Shri Bijoy Das is someone else and not the petitioner. But there was no explanation as to w hat happened to the case of the petitioner and/or why his name was not included. In an earlier litigation involved in WP(C) No.2427/2010, pertaining to the same issue, the respondents had filed counter affidavit, in which, it was admitted th at there was wrong identity of the petitioner with another Bijoy Das. In the sai d affidavit, it was the stand of the respondents that since the petitioner was t ransferred to Nalbari Sub-Division in the year 1998, he was not entitled to get seniority from 1998. The question of seniority is altogether a different issue. It is the length of s ervice, which is required for regularization of service. When it was noticed th at Muster Roll Workers, similarly situated with that of the petitioner (appointe d on the same date), have been regularized but altogether a different approach w as made only to the petitioner, more particularly, in view of wrong identity of his name, direction was issued to treat the case of the petitioner at par with t hat of his colleagues, whose services had been regularized on 22.7.2005. I have gone through the review petition, in which, various grounds have been urg ed towards assailing the said order. Referring to certain decisions of the Apex Court and also of this Court, it has been urged that this Court could not have i ssued direction for regularization of services of the petitioner. Needless to sa y that a ratio of a decision will have to be understood in the facts of the case . In my view, such a plea on the part of the Government of Assam in the Finance De partment is most unfortunate. Instead of accepting the fact that because of wron g identity of the petitioner with another Bijoy Das, his service was not regular ized, the Government has now filed this review petition towards assailing the or der under review which was passed following the principles of justice, equity an d good conscious, when it was noticed that other similarly situated persons, who had also been transferred from N.C. Hills to Nalbalri Division like that of the petitioner had been regularized, but the petitioner was left out because of con fusion relating to his name and identifying him with another Bijoy Das. This Co urt exercising writ jurisdiction passed the impugned order for the ends of justi ce. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this review petition and accord ingly, it is dismissed.