Heard Mr. Rupachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Suresh, learned State Counsel, for the official respondents. 2. This petition is claimed to have been filed in a representative capacity by the President and Secretary of the Manipur Public Works Department Building Project Division Employees and Workers Association, Imphal (hereafter for short the Corporation). The association represents the interest of 260 members who had been the muster roll/work charge employees of the Public Works Department (hereafter referred to as the Department). In short the case of the petitioners is that the present members of the association along with other muster roll workers of the Department had been ousted from service without regularizing them. Several similarly situated persons having approached this Court earlier have thereafter been retained pursuant to the orders passed in the related proceedings for consideration of their cases. The association espousing the cause of its aforementioned members has in the meantime amongst others submitted a representation before the Principal Secretary, Works, Government of Manipur, Imphal, and the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Manipur, Imphal on 20.5.2006 requesting for their retention as muster roll/work charge employees in the Department. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed that this petition be closed with a direction to the above authorities to consider and dispose of the representation on merits. 4. The learned State Counsel has raised objection to the maintainability of the petition contending that not only the same is unduly delayed, it being in a representative capacity; the petitioners ought to have paid the required Court fees under Chapter V A of the Gauhati High Court Rules. 5. On a consideration of the materials on record, I find that the objections raised have considerable force. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents to retain the members of the association. Noticeably, the association is not the petitioner before this Court. Not only the petition is delayed without any explanation, the requisite Court fee prescribed under Chapter V A of the Gauhati High Court Rules has also not been paid. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has readily agreed to furnish the deficit Court fee payable for all the individual members of the association. Not only the petition is delayed without any explanation, the requisite Court fee prescribed under Chapter V A of the Gauhati High Court Rules has also not been paid. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has readily agreed to furnish the deficit Court fee payable for all the individual members of the association. In the above view of the matter, this petition is closed leaving it to the State respondents more particularly the authorities abovementioned to consider and dispose of the representation on merits. It is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction to retain the petitioners in the Department and it will be exclusively within the discretion of concerned authorities to take a decision in the matter. 6. The petitioners would deposit the deficit Court fee with the Registrar of the Office by 11/8/2006. If that is done, the respondent authorities would complete the process indicated hereinabove expeditiously. No costs.