WP(C) 4107/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI The petitioner’s case, in brief, is thus: The petitioner’s husband, late Krishn a Bahadur Thapa, was engaged as Muster Roll worker, on 05.11.1992, in the establ ishment of the Executive Engineer (R & B), Public Works Department, Government o f Assam, Maibang Division. Having rendered service in the capacity of Muster Ro ll worker for about 26 years 8 months and 7 days, the petitioner’s husband died on 12.02.2008. As the petitioner’s husband was not regularized as employee of t he said establishment and, as he was not holding any substantive post at the tim e of his death, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of pension on account of the fact that the provisions of Rule 146 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rul es, 1969, bars payment of any family pension to the dependants of such category of workers. Heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Ms . A. Verma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2, and Ms. R. Deka, l earned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1. 3 and 4. While considering the present writ petition, it may be noted that the St ate Government, by Office Memorandum, dated 29.05.2009, has laid down the condit ions subject to which a Muster Roll Worker’s service can be regularized for the purpose of enabling them to receive pension. For the purpose of enabling a pers on, such as, the present petitioner, receive pension, this Court has issued seve ral directions, in various writ petitions, for creation of superannuary posts, f or one day, in favour of the Muster Roll Workers so as to enable them receive pe nsion and pensionary benefits. In fact, in the order, dated 21.05.2008, passed, in WP(C) No. 2186/2007 and WP(C ) No. 2384/2007, the Court has taken the view that such practice for creating su perannuary post, for the purpose of enabling Muster Roll Workers receive pension ary benefits, is in accordance with law. The relevant observations made, in thi s regard, read as under: & & &..A reading of the order of the Full Bench, in Jitendra Kalita (supra) woul seem to indicate that the cases of the present kind were not in contemplation o f the Full Bench and, therefore, were not included within the prohibition on fur ther regularizations in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.04.1995, as cont ained in paragraph 28(2) of the order, dated 17.5.2006, passed by the Full Bench . The issue before the Full Bench was with regard to the validity of the Office Memorandum, dated 20.04.1995. The said Office Memorandum having been held not to be laying down a valid policy for regularization, the Full Bench imposed a pr ohibition on further regularizations in terms of the same Office Memorandum with out, however, disturbing the regularizations already made. On reading the full text of the judgment of the Full Bench, it cannot be said that while passing the order, dated 17.06.2006, the Full Bench can be intended to have laid down the l aw that even regularizations after death or retirement for a single day against a superannuary post for the purpose of pensionary benefits was prohibited. The above being the purport and effect of the Full Bench order, dated 17 .05.2006, as can be understood from reading the judgment in question, the stand taken by the Finance and the Public Works Department, in their respective affida vits, has to be clarified by the Court to be not in consonance with the spirit o f the Full Bench order, dated 17.05.2006. If that be so, the Court finds no imp ediment for application of the past practice of creation of superannuary posts o nly for the purpose of regularization of the work charged/muster roll employees, who have either retired or have died in that status for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. In the result, both the writ petitions shall stand disposed of in terms of the observations and clarifications as contained above with further liberty t o the departments in question to proceed in the matter in accordance with what h as been observed above so as to ensure that the petitioners in both the cases ar e paid such pensionary benefits to which they would be entitled in law. The respondents are directed to take necessary action as would now be re quired so as to enable the petitioners to receive their dues as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four months from the date of rece ipt of this order or a certified copy thereof & & & &.. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s case is same as the ones, whi ch were covered by the order, dated 21.05.2008, aforementioned, this writ petiti on is disposed of with direction to the respondents to regularized the service o f the petitioner’s husband, for one day, by creating superannuary post and, then , take further action, in terms of the Office Memorandum, dated 20.05.2009, afor ementioned enabling the petitioner receive pension and pensionary benefits. The whole exercise, so directed, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent No. 3, namel y, Chief Engineer (R & B), Public Works Department, Government of Assam. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the respondents.