Heard Mr. RC Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Chutia, learned Govt Advocate, Assam. 2. These five writ petitioners were engaged as muster roll labourers sometime in 1978-79, except the petitioner No.5, Sri Pradip Kumar Das, who joined on 31.1.90. While serving as muster roll labourers, the question of regularisation of a their services was considered and in this regard the Under Secretary to the Govt of Assam, PWD, addressed a letter to the Accountant General on 31st March/ 84 to the following effect : “I am directed to convey the sanction of the Governor of Assam to the creation of 4628 Nos of temporary posts of labourers in the scale of pay of Rs. 370-5-420-490/ - PM (in respect of 66 Divisions only) as shown in Annexure I for a period upto b 28.2.85 for bringing to the regular cadre with effect from 1.3.84, the Muster Roll Labourers working in the PW Department who have completed minimum 15 (fifteen) years of continuous service in the Department. The expenditure will be debitable to the respective work/Head of Accounts in which the Muster Roll Labourers were engaged. No new Muster Roll Labourers shall be engaged without the concurrence of Finance Department. This issues with the concurrence of Finance (EC II) Department vide their U/O. No. EC. 11.872/84 dated 29.3.84.” 3. The writ petitioners are from Mangaldoi. Number of posts of labourers shown against Mangaldoi Division is 246. Office order No. 207 of 1993-94 was issued on 27.12.93 confirming the services of 109 persons. The order reads : “In pursuance of Addl Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) (Planning) Assam's No. CEE/67/88/73 dated 4.11.92 the following Regular M/R Labourers of this Division who have already completed minimum 5 years of regular service are hereby confirmed in the post with effect from 1.9.93 in the scale of pay Rs. 900-151004-20-1105-EB-20-1225-30-1435 plus other allowances sanctioned by the Govt of Assam from time to time.” 4. At this stage Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the persons, whose services were confirmed after their services were regularised earlier by the order dated 27.12.93 were, in fact, junior to the writ petitioners. The learned Govt Advocate submits that as muster roll labourers these 109 persons named in Annexure D were, in fact, engaged earlier than the writ petitioners. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the persons, whose services were confirmed after their services were regularised earlier by the order dated 27.12.93 were, in fact, junior to the writ petitioners. The learned Govt Advocate submits that as muster roll labourers these 109 persons named in Annexure D were, in fact, engaged earlier than the writ petitioners. On careful perusal of this order, however, it is apparent that it is an order of confirmation after these 109 persons had served for five years after the order of regularisation. It appears, regularisation in respect of these 109 persons had been issued on completion of 15 years as muster roll labourers and it is the yardstick in this regard. 5. On 28th March 97 office order No.239 of 1996-97 was issued and it reads: “In pursuance to Govt sanction conveyed vide letter No. ADT/161/79/415 dated 31.3.84, No. ADT/161.79 PT-111/35 dated 13.12.90 and No. ADT119/92/45 dated 28.2.95 against this division, the casual MR Labourers as per list attached herewith, who have completed 15 (fifteen) years continuous service or more as on 28.2.97 are brought to regular cadre under W/C establishment in the scale of pay of Rs.900-15-1005-20-EB-1225-30-1435/-permonth with effect from 1.3.97 and until further orders. The expenditure is debitable to the Head of A/c 3054 R&B etc. This order is purely temporary & subject to cancellation without any notice & assigning any reason thereof.” 6. Another letter was written to the Under Secretary to the Govt of Assam, PWD, on 19th Dec'97 by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Mangaldoi, Road, requesting the State Govt to approve regularisation of persons who were engaged as muster roll labourers against the respective areas, particularly of those persons who had completed not less than 15 years as muster roll labourers. 7. On 10th February'98 another office order No. 192 of 1997-98 wasissued and the same reads: “As per instruction conveyed vide Under Secretary, PWD, Assam (Audit Branches No. ADT. 210/94/34 dated 1.12.97 and Secretary, PWD, Assam, Dispute No. ADT.210/94/36 dated 22.1.98 the office order No. 239 of 1996-97 and No. 97 of 1997-98 issued vide this office No. E/394/C/12029-113 dated 28.3.97 and No. E/394/C/7027-8117 dated 10.9.97 respectively for regularisation of MR Labourers is hereby cancelled and this will come into effect from 1.2.98 and until further orders. This is also as per term and condition of the last para of the aforesaid office orders. This is also as per term and condition of the last para of the aforesaid office orders. However, fresh proposal is being sent for favour qf approval.” 8. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of cancellation is not sustainable, firstly because after the services of the writ petitioners were regularised by office order No. 239 of 1996797 dated 28th March 97 allowing them to enjoy regular scale of pay, some right had already been accrued to them and such right cannot be taken away by a subsequent order in the manner sought for to be done in the present case. The writ petitioners had already enjoyed the fruits of the office order referred to above for over a year and, in fact, one annual increment had already been allowed in the regular pay scale described in this regard and secondly it is also submitted that the impugned order of cancellation is not sustainable, inasmuch as, it violates the principle of natural justice. It is the case of the writ petitioners that no opportunity whatsoever was given to them of is being heard before such drastic action of cancellation was taken by the authority concerned. 9. Mr. Chutia, learned Govt Advocate, submits that proposal for approval has been forwarded to the State Govt and the same is awaited. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petitioners are still continuing, though not in a regular manner and their cases will certainly be considered by the State Govt and regularisation will come as a matter of course when the financial position improves. However, the fact that proposal has been sent up is clearly reflected even in the impugned order of cancellation. According to the learned Govt Advocate the order of cancellation was issued, as the order of regularisation was issued without the concurrence of the Finance Department. 10. It is submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners will retire within few years on superannuation and, therefore, unless their services are regularised, they will not get any pensionary benefit upon retirement. Obviously, the writ petitioners have put in 20 or more years of service continuously to the State Govt. 11. It will only be fair and reasonable if the services of the petitioners are regularised. Obviously, the writ petitioners have put in 20 or more years of service continuously to the State Govt. 11. It will only be fair and reasonable if the services of the petitioners are regularised. Indeed, regularisation was issued in respect of the writ petitioners and they had actually enj oy ed the fruits of regularisation by receiving the regular a pay and allowances for more than one year. They will certainly feel aggrieved if such benefit that had already been accrued to them is snatched away without giving any notice to them. The present case relates to persons of the lowest rung. They cannot go for any other means of livelihood except the one for which they are engaged. 12. In view of the facts stated above, I am of the opinion that the order of cancellation is not fair and, therefore, it is not sustainable. 13. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of cancellation dated 10th February 98 is set aside.