( 1 ) OFFICE memorandum dated 26-9-1988 was under challenge by the respondents before the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 2 ) ). The learned Single Judge while deciding the matter finally was pleased to direct regularisation of the respondents herein and to pay salary in terms of their entitlement on a monthly basis as and when the same become due. The stafe Government, however, was on appeal before the appellate court and the appellate court upon hearing the submissions on 28-5-1997 quashed the regularisation aspect of the matter but retained the other portions of the order. It will be convenient to note the office memorandum dated 26-9-1988 to assess the situation ourselves which depicts that such employees have been transferred on to the permanent muster roll (monthly basis) from daily wages vide office order dated 25-1-1988 and their placement on permanent muster roll was however negatived by the subsequent memorandum under challenge dated 26-9-1988 reverting the respondents herein again to the temporary muster roll. ( 3 ) THE principal grievance of the State Government is that since the employees concerned have not completed three years of service, question of transferring them from temporary to permanent muster roll even on monthly basis would not arise. As such, both the learned Single Judge as also the appellate court were in error in the matter of placement of the respondents in the permanent muster roll though monthly in nature. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge while dealing with the matter had been pleased to record that the respondents herein had completed three years of service and the same had not been controverted by the appellant (State government ). In the wake of such factual situation, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct regularisation which stands negatived by the appellate court. But the appellate court thought it fit to continue with the rest of the order which in effect transfers the respondents herein from temporary roll to monthwise permanent muster roll. There must be some cogent reasons as to why the State Government should prefer an appeal before this Court. The reasons seem to be rather imaginary by reason of the fact that no regularisation has been effected therein entitling the respondents to reap further benefits. There must be some cogent reasons as to why the State Government should prefer an appeal before this Court. The reasons seem to be rather imaginary by reason of the fact that no regularisation has been effected therein entitling the respondents to reap further benefits. It is the placement of the respondents herein by reason of completion of three years period from temporary muster roll to a permanent muster roll. We do not thus find any merit in this appeal. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.