WP(C) 5403/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B .K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow him to work in the post in which he had been allegedly serving and to rele ase his salary in compliance of the judgement and order dated 22.3.2005, passed in WP(C) 6132/2001. As per the own admission of the petitioner in the writ petition, more pa rticularly, in the synopsis, it is the sand of the petitioner that he was tempor arily appointed as grade-III staff in the office of the CDPO, Chandrapur Karara ICDS Project in the District of Kamrup in a fixed and consolidated pay of Rs. 90 0/- for a period of six months by Annexure-I order dated 5.9.1995. Thereafter, h is service was allegedly extended upto 2001 and thereafter his service was not e xtended, meaning thereby that the temporary appointment of the petitioner for a fixed duration came to an end. Bt it stated here that the petitioner was not app ointed pursuant to any selection. The petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP(C) 6132/2001 in which his allegation was that although his service was not extended but the authoritie s made certain adhoc appointments secretly to the deprivation of the petitioner. While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 31.8.2001 ordering that the petitioner should not be ousted by other appointees. Thus, the re was no direction as such to continue with the services of the petitioner. When a grievance was made that his service was not continued in terms of the said interim order, a direction was issued to file an additional affidavit highlighting the status of the service of the petitioner. Pursuant to the afores aid direction vide order dated 14.11.2003, the petitioner filed the Annexure-VI Misc. Application, in which it was stated that he was regularly visiting the off ice but the CDPO did not allow him to sign the attendance register. Thus, in the Misc. Application itself, the petitioner had admitted dispensation of his servi ce, which was purely temporary and for a fixed period of time. The writ petition was disposed of finally by order dated 22.3.2005 provi ding the petitioner be allowed to continue on same arrangement as on the date of passing the order till a regular selection process was initiated. Although, the aforesaid order was passed on 22.3.2005 and the service of the petitioner was not continued as the same had already been terminated, the p etitioner kept on waiting for long 3(three) years and thereafter filed the prese nt writ petition on 18.12.2008 with the aforesaid prayer. As noted above, as per own admission of the petitioner, his services was not extended beyond 2001. In the final order dated 22.3.2005 passed in the earl ier writ petition being WP(C) 6132/2001, the expression same arrangement will have to be understood in the context that the petitioner was no longer in servi ce. The state of affairs that was continuing in respect of the service of the pe titioner as on the date of passing the interim order dated 31.8.2001 and the fin al order dated 22.3.2005, cannot be set at naught by the kind of interpretation the petitioner has sought to give in respect of his service. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has been categorica lly stated that the petitioner had not attended office since January, 2001 and t hat there is no record to show the service of the petitioner thereafter. It appe ars that the final order passed on 22.3.2005 in the earlier writ petition was no t communicated to the respondents by the learned State Counsel. Be that as it ma y, since the petitioner was no longer in service since January, 2001 and the int erim order dated 31.8.2001 was only to the effect that the petitioner should not be ousted by another appointee and the stand of the respondents being that the petitioner was not ousted by another appointee, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be deemed to be in service all throughout entitling him the salary. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was no longer in service since Jan uary, 2001, a fact which the petitioner has himself admitted in the writ petitio n. Even in the Misc. Application filed in the earlier writ petition also the ple a of the petitioner was that he had been visiting the office but the CDPO did no t allow him to sign the register. As already opined the above expression same a rrangement in the final order dated 22.3.2005 passed in the earlier writ petiti on will have to be understood in the context that the petitioner was no longer i n service since January, 2001. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have enclosed the copy o f the letter dated 1.6.2010 addressed to the Programme Officer-II in the Office of the Director, Social Welfare, written by the District Social Welfare Officer, Kamrup, in which it has been stated that the service of the petitioner was last extended upto 28.2.1999 vide order dated 22.1.2001 and accordingly the petition er had also been paid his wages @ Rs. 900/- per month till 31.1.1999. As per the said letter, the petitioner had last signed the Attendance Register in the mont h of September, 1997, however, he has received his wages on different dates, las t being in January, 2001. In the letter, it has also been indicated that the ser vice of the petitioner was not extended beyond 1.3.1999. The letter has further revealed that the petitioner was not allowed to attend the office since his serv ice was not extended after the last extension in 1999. The aforesaid stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit has not been d enied by the petitioner by filling rejoinder affidavit. In view of the above, no direction can be issued to regularise the services of the petitioner and / or t o pay salary to him even for the period he did not render any service. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.