JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Patowary, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the authorities of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council. 2. It is a case of inadvertent mistake on the part of the authorities, but for which the petitioner would have found himself to be in the same category as that of his other colleagues in service. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on 01.11.90 as Muster Roll (MR) worker in the Public Works Department (PWD). The MR workers who had been similarly appointed on 01.11.90 alongwith the petitioner and who have been named in the petition have been regularized in their services by office order dated 24.10.05. However, the services of the petitioner was not regularized. He made the representations to the authorities, but no effect. Hence this writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid facts have been admitted. In paragraphs- 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated thus: 5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 and 5 of the writ petition the deponent humbly beg to state that the list of work charge/muster roll labourers for regularization of their services was prepared as per Govt. Letter No. ACEH/G/4/2000/34 A dated 08.02.2005 and submitted to the competent authority. But due to oversight the name of Shri Kulasing Bordolo's was dropped from the list of Muster Roll Labourers. When the said mistake was noticed respondent No. 3 immediately brought it to the notice of the Government. Pursuant thereto in terms of the direction contained in letter No. ADT. 71/2005/Pt.-I/66 dated 25.04.2006 and letter No. CEE/54/2006/2 dated 22.05.2006 dated 22.05.2006 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD and the Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD respectively a list have been prepared for submission of service particulars in respect of left out work charge/must roll workers engaged prior to 01.04.93 for regularization of their services. Thereafter, the said list has been sent to the competent authority for according approval. But till date approval of the finance department is not received. 6. Thereafter, the said list has been sent to the competent authority for according approval. But till date approval of the finance department is not received. 6. That which regard to the statements made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition the deponent humbly begs to state that due to oversight the name of the petitioner had been left out. The deponent further humbly beg to state that the competent authority has been requested to look into the matter and regularize Shri Bordoloi vide letter No. MST.2/2188, dated 21.11.2005 & letter No. MST.2/453 dated 01.06.2006. 7. From the above statement made by the respondents in their counter affidavit, what has transpired is that the name of the petitioner was dropped from the list of the MR workers due to oversight and/or mistake on the part of the PWD authorities, but for which the petitioner would have been included in Annexure-A office order dated 24.10.05. In the said list his name ought to have been at serial No. 46, instead it is the respondent No. 6 who was included in that serial number. 8. Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Standing counsel representing the authorities of KAAC, submits that the respondent No. 6 has abandoned his service and has not attended his duties since 2004. 9. Above being the position and it being a case of omitting the name of the petitioner due to oversight, I am of the considered view that the name of the petitioner is required to be incorporated in Annexure-A list dated 24.10.05 with all consequential benefits. 10. At this stage, Mr. J. Patowari, learned Counsel for the PWD drawing attention to the decision in the case of Jiten Kalita v. State of Assam reported in 2006 (3) GLR 143, submits that there cannot be any order for regularization after the aforesaid judgment. In paragraph-28 of the judgment, it has been observed that the particular office memorandum in terms of which orders for regularization have been passed is not sustainable in law. However, the regularization already effected has not been disturbed. 11. Dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General, Assam it was observed that although there may be serious limitations in applying the doctrine of prospective overruling. However, the regularization already effected has not been disturbed. 11. Dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General, Assam it was observed that although there may be serious limitations in applying the doctrine of prospective overruling. But, in the facts and circumstances noted, humanitarian considerations can and ought to be invoked by the Court to protect and preserve what has happened and refrain from unsettling what has become settled. It was further observed that application of harmonizing principles on humanitarian considerations in the facts of the case, would only enhance the majesty of law. 12. In the aforesaid decision although a particular policy towards regularization of services of the MR workers who had been appointed prior to 01.04.1993 has been held to be not valid, but the regularization which were effected prior to the judgment delivered on 17.05.06 have not been interfered with. 13. In the instant case, the order of regularization was passed on 24.10.05 (Annexure-A) which was much prior to the aforesaid judgment, but for the mistake committed by the respondents the name of the petitioner would have been included in the said list, a fact which has been admitted by the respondents themselves. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the spirit and principles laid down in the said judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves a fair consideration at the hands of the respondents. Accordingly it is directed that the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 1, shall do the needful towards incorporating the name of the petitioner in Annexure-A list of regularization dated 24.10.05. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. 13. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.