P. K. Musahary, J.- The present writ petition is directed against the impugned action of the respondent authorities in not giving pay protection to the petitioners while regularising their services in Grade-IV posts for Muster Roll Labourers from the posts of W/C Electrical Jugali (Grade-IV) held by them and thereby compelling them to render services without payment of adequate wages/remunerations which, as alleged by the petitioners, amounts t to forced labour in the eye of law. The entire gamut of the case of the petitioners, numbering 73, is that they were initially appointed in the Grade-IV posts of Muster Roll Labourers during the period from 1980 to 1984. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati, Electrical Division (herein respondent No. 6) by issuing various orders upgraded the services of many of the petitioners to Grade-IV posts of W/C Electrical Jugali in the scale of pay of Rs. 900-15-1005-20-1105-EB-20-1125-30-14357-p.m. with all other allowances as admissible under the rules. Similarly, the services of other petitioners were also upgraded to the Grade-IV posts of W/C Electrical Jugali by various orders issued by the respondent authorities. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, all the writ petitioners joined in their respective upgraded posts and started rendering services till 30.09.2005 and by then, all the petitioners were granted several annual increments and their basic pay reached Rs. 2830/- p.m. approximately. While they were rendering their services, as stated above, in the aforementioned scale of pay. the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD, Audit Branch, Dispur, issued an order dated 30.09.2005 conveying the sanction of Governor of Assam, to creation of posts for regularization of the services of W/Cand Muster Roll Workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993. The petitioners who were working as W/C staff came within the purview of the said posts but although the petitioners were rendering their services in the posts of W/C Electrical Jugali, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2005, the petitioners were regularized in the Grade-FV posts of Muster Roll Workers w.e.f. 22.07.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-40-2770-EB-60-3490-90-3670/- p.m. The petitioners were allowed to draw the pay scale at the initial stage of Rs. 2450/- p.m. only which is much lesser than the current pay scale of Rs. 2830/- p.m. drawn by them. The petitioners, being aggrieved, submitted representations on several occasions before the authorities concerned requesting them to protect their pay but to no avail. 2450-40-2770-EB-60-3490-90-3670/- p.m. The petitioners were allowed to draw the pay scale at the initial stage of Rs. 2450/- p.m. only which is much lesser than the current pay scale of Rs. 2830/- p.m. drawn by them. The petitioners, being aggrieved, submitted representations on several occasions before the authorities concerned requesting them to protect their pay but to no avail. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for redressal of their grievances. 2. Heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, for respondent PWD and Mr. D. Saikia, learned standing counsel, for respondent Finance Department. 3. Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the writ petitioners were upgraded to W/C Electrical Jugalis by order dated 30.09.1994 in the scale of pay of Rs. 900-143 5/- p.m. and they have been allowed to continue in the said post giving them several increments attaining the basic scale of pay of Rs. 2830/- p.m. in respect of most of the petitioners and at least some of them Rs. 2890/- p.m., the subsequent order issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, vide his letter dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) regularizing the services of the petitioners along with others, in the Grade-IV post of M.P. Electrical Jugalis in the pay scale of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. is unreasonable and illegal inasmuch as they have been downgraded from W/C to Muster Roll Staff and that too, in the lower scale of pay than what they have been receiving and thereby, causing financial loss to them. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners should have been regularized as W/C workers and their scale of pay should have been raised taking into account the increments they have so far received and by not doing so, the petitioners have been denied both service and financial benefits. The learned counsel further submits that the benefits of increments granted to them during their service period as W/C workers should have been given to the petitioners in the new scale of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. and their pay should be refixed accordingly. By refusing to do so, a grave injustice has been done to the instant writ petitioners inasmuch as they have been rendering continuous service for a period of more than 10 years as W/C Electrical Jugalis since 1994. 4. 2450-3670/- p.m. and their pay should be refixed accordingly. By refusing to do so, a grave injustice has been done to the instant writ petitioners inasmuch as they have been rendering continuous service for a period of more than 10 years as W/C Electrical Jugalis since 1994. 4. In support of his foregoing submissions, Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, places and relies on Tarun Tamuli Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2001 (I) GLT 87 wherein it is held, inter alia, that denial or withdrawal of annual increment to the ad-hoc employees continuing in service for years together would be against fair play and justice. 5. Mr. D. Saikia, learned standing counsel for respondent Finance Department, Government of Assam, submits that as many as 93 Muster Roll workers including the present petitioners (73 in nos.) were no doubt upgraded to Grade-IV W/C in the scale of Rs. 900-14357- p.m. vide order dated 30.09.1994 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Guwahati, Electrical Division, Chandmari, but the said up-gradation was done without approval of the State Cabinet and consultation with the Finance Department. Moreover, at the time of up-gradation in the year 1994, there were no sanctioned posts and as such, action of up-gradation of the petitioners from Muster Roll Workers of W/C Electrical Jugalis, as was done by the said Executive Engineer, was highly improper and illegal. 6. Mr. Saikia, learned standing counsel, further submits that the respondent Finance Department received a proposal from the PWD for creation/sanction of posts of Muster Roll and W/C Grade-IV Staff and in pursuance to Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005, the Finance Department accorded concurrence to creation of 8598 nos. of Grade-IV posts (including 205 Nos. of Grade-IV posts for Guwahati Electrical Division) for regularizing the services of equal numbers of Muster Roll Workers under the respondent PWD who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and in continuous service vide letter No. FEC(II) 1/2005/66 dated 22.08.2005. In pursuance to this letter, the PWD created 8598 Nos. of Grade-IV posts (including 205 Nos. of Grade-IV posts for Guwahati Electrical Division) for regularising the services of equal numbers of Muster Roll Workers vide letter No. ADT. 71/2005/133 dated 30.09.2005. In pursuance to this letter, the PWD created 8598 Nos. of Grade-IV posts (including 205 Nos. of Grade-IV posts for Guwahati Electrical Division) for regularising the services of equal numbers of Muster Roll Workers vide letter No. ADT. 71/2005/133 dated 30.09.2005. Thereafter, the Finance Department received a representation from the General Secretary of Sadou Asom Swikritiprapta Bidyut Aru Panijyogan Karmi Santha, Guwahati, regarding anomalies of pay occurred due to the aforesaid regularization in respect of 93 persons under Guwahati Electrical Division (out of 205 Nos. of Grade-IV posts, as stated above). The petitioners, 73 in numbers, are within those 93 persons. A detailed report on the said representation was called for from the PWD and in its turn, the PWD submitted a proposal to the Finance Department stating that those 93 persons were engaged originally as Muster Roll Workers prior to 01.04.1993 but they were upgraded as W/C workers after 01.04.1993 and accordingly, requested the Finance Department for concurrence to the appointments/regularization of services of those 93 persons as W/C workers with retrospective effect and necessary pay protection. The said proposal of respondent PWD was examined in the Finance Department thoroughly and it was found that the PWD upgraded those 93 Muster Roll Workers as W/C workers without following any Rules/guidelines/circulars and there was no Cabinet approval or consultation with the Finance Department before the aforesaid up-gradation was done. It is apprised by Mr. Saikia, learned standing counsel, that the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005 was for regularization of services of those W/C and Muster Roll Workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and have been working continuously since then. The present petitioners were engaged as W/C workers after 01.04.1993 and hence, the question of regularization of their services as W/C workers by creating W/C Grade posts after 01.04.1993 and protection of their pay does not arise, for, the aforesaid proposal of PWD was returned by the Finance Department vide endorsement dated 10.11.2006 with two options, namely:- (i) Either to accept the regularization of their services as Muster Roll Workers as already issued by the PWD, (ii) To continue as W/C workers with the same pay which they have been receiving prior to regularization. The aforesaid submissions, according to Mr. Saikia, learned standing counsel, is borne on record and supported by an affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department. 7. The aforesaid submissions, according to Mr. Saikia, learned standing counsel, is borne on record and supported by an affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department. 7. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for respondent PWD, supports the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for respondent Finance Department. The learned standing counsel, however, submits that all the petitioners were engaged as Muster Roll Workers on daily-wage basis prior to 01.04.1993 on different dates by the respondent Executive Engineer as per requirement against different works and subsequent to 01.04.1993, they were allowed to serve as W/C, Electrical Jugalis on purely temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. The petitioners continued their services as W/C Electrical Jugalis till 30.09.2005 and in the meant time, their pay had been raised to Rs. 2830/- p.m. by way of annual increments after 01.04.1993. After the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005 was taken to regularize the services of those Muster Roll and W/C workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993, the services of the petitioners who were serving in the capacity of Muster Roll Workers as on 31.03.1993 were regularized as Grade-IV Muster Roll Workers by allowing them initial scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. In respect of the incumbents who were engaged as Muster Roll Workers prior to 01.04.1993 and subsequently, allowed to serve as W/C Electrical Jugalis in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. under the W/C establishment and who have earned annual pay to some higher levels like the present petitioners, the Government offered two options, as under:- (i) The incumbents concerned may accept the regularization order already issued by the Department regularizing their services as Muster Roll Workers by creating Grade-IV posts personally to them to accept their pay accordingly i.e. at initial stage under regular establishment, (ii) The incumbents concerned may continue as W/C workers (as was prior to regularization with the same pay which they had been receiving prior to regularization and if they continue as W/C Electrical Jugalis, their regularization order as Muster Roll Workers shall be cancelled. The regularization of their services as W/C Electrical Jugalis shall be considered as and when any decision for regularization of the services of W/C and Muster Roll Workers engaged on or after 01.04.1993 is taken by the Government. 8. The regularization of their services as W/C Electrical Jugalis shall be considered as and when any decision for regularization of the services of W/C and Muster Roll Workers engaged on or after 01.04.1993 is taken by the Government. 8. Accordingly, all such incumbents were asked to furnish option through the concerned Executive Engineers vide letter dated 09.01.2007 but no such option has been received from the petitioners till date. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, PWD, since no option has been exercised by the petitioners, the Government could not pass any order and as such, the action taken so far by the respondent authorities cannot be said to be illegal. Further, since no Cabinet decision has been taken in respect of regularisation of the services of W/C and Muster Roll Workers engaged after 01.04.1993, the respondent authorities have no scope for taking any further action. However, it is submitted that in respect of Muster Roll Workers including the petitioners, who were engaged on or before 31.03.1993 and subsequently (after 01.04.1993) were allowed to serve as W/C Electrical Jugalis, the Government have decided to continue their services so that they may not suffer financial loss by drawing less pay. As the petitioners have already earned annual increments due to their upgradation as W/C Electrical Jugalis after 01.04.1993 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m., they may remain in the same posts i.e. W/C Electrical Jugalis with the same pay of Rs. 2830/- p.m. plus other allowances which they were receiving prior to their regularization. The petitioners were offered option only for this purpose but they have so far preferred not to accept the same. Under such circumstances, there is no scope for the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to draw their pay and allowances in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. in continuation of stage at which they were drawing their pay and allowances on the date prior to the issuance of office order No. 565 dated 05.10.2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and/or regularize their services as W/C Electrical Jugalis with effect from the date of their respective upgradation as claimed by them. The aforesaid submissions of the learned standing counsel for respondent P WD are also supported by the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3-6. 9. The aforesaid submissions of the learned standing counsel for respondent P WD are also supported by the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3-6. 9. From the pleadings of the petitioners, it is found that they are claiming service as well as financial benefit vis-a-vis pay protection by counting their services as W/C Electrical Jugalis w.e.f. 30.09.2004 inasmuch as they were upgraded from Muster Roll Workers to W/C workers as per the office order dated 30.09.1994 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) in the scale of pay of Rs. 900-143 51- p.m. with all other allowances as admissible under the Rules. According to the petitioners, after rendering service for more than about 10 years by 05.10.2005 i.e. by the time their services were brought under regular cadre against the sanctioned posts vide Office Order No. 565 dated 05.10.2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m., they have been receiving salaries more than the basic scale of pay of Rs. 2450/- p.m. by way of annual increments and as such, the basic scale of pay in respect of the petitioners should be higher than Rs. 2450/- p.m., that is precisely to say, it should not be lesser than Rs. 2830/- p.m. Alternatively, if such higher basic pay scale could not be allowed, the petitioners should be given pay protection by refixing their salaries at the level of Rs. 2830/- p.m. to remove the pay anomaly and discrimination. 10. The acceptability of the aforesaid claims of the petitioners is dependent on a finding as to whether there was any Cabinet decision for upgrading the Muster Roll Workers to W/C workers as on 30.09.1994 and as to whether there was any concurrence from the Finance Department and sanction to the posts of W/C workers in the scale of pay of Rs. 900-1435/-p.m. 11. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, and it is seen that they have categorically denied the existence of any Cabinet decision or concurrence of the Finance Department on creation of W/C or W/C Electrical Jugalis in the year 1994 in the PWD. It is also found there from that such Cabinet decision for creation/upgradation of Muster Roll and W/C workers was taken in the year 2005 i.e. precisely on 22.07.2005 and thereafter only, the Finance Department gave its concurrence to creation of 8598 nos. of Grade-IV posts including 205 nos. of Grade-IV for Guwahati Electrical Division for regularizing the services of equal nos. of Muster Roll Workers under PWD who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and in continuous service. 12. The aforesaid stand of the respondent Finance Department has been backed by the respondent PWD in their affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Chief Engineer (Building) on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3-6. The petitioners have filed no rejoinder to the affidavits-in-opposition of the respondent authorities denying or disputing the contentions that there was no Cabinet decision, concurrence of respondent Finance Department and sanction to creation of W/C Electrical Jugalis in the year 1994 and their upgradation to W/C workers by order dated 30.09.1994, was not illegal and irregular. If no such denial is forthcoming from the petitioners, the said stand of the Government should be accepted as an admitted position. 13. From the pleadings of the respondent authorties, it has become crystal clear that the Cabinet decision was taken only on 22.07.2005 to regularize the services of those W/C and Muster Roll Workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and accordingly, the concurrence was given by the Finance Department followed by sanction of required number of W/C and Muster Roll Workers paving the way for regularization of the services of the present writ petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1993 as Muster Roll Workers by allowing them initial pay scale of Rs. 2450/-p.m. in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. 14. As regards the offer of options by the Finance Department, it is found that the same were communicated by the respondent PWD to the petitioners, but they have remained silent as to whether they have accepted or rejected the same for taking the final decision. On the other hand, it also appears that the petitioners have accepted the position that their upgradation from Muster Roll Workers to W/C Electrical Jugalis by order dated 30.09.1994 was not backed by any sanction from the Government and there were no sanctioned posts to accommodate them as W/C workers during the said period. On the other hand, it also appears that the petitioners have accepted the position that their upgradation from Muster Roll Workers to W/C Electrical Jugalis by order dated 30.09.1994 was not backed by any sanction from the Government and there were no sanctioned posts to accommodate them as W/C workers during the said period. Knowing the said position well that they are not entitled to count the service as W/C Electrical Jugalis on the basis of order dated 30.09.1994, more particularly, due to the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005 for regularization of W/C workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993, they have preferred not to exercise the option given by the respondent authorities. 15. The petitioners have demanded the benefit of increments towards fixation of their salary on the basis of the decision of this Court in Tarun Tamuli (supra). That was a case where as many as 67 Subject Teachers of different higher secondary schools in Goalpara District were appointed on adhoc basis as per the Assam Public Services (Adhoc) Rules, 1986, who have been discharging their duties regularly but were denied regularization although they have already been accorded annual increments. They were selected in the selection test and accordingly, appointed on regular basis without giving them the benefit of annual increments as they were appointed earlier on adhoc basis only. The respondent authorities, in the said case, ordered refund of the amount as per refixation which were subsequently waived by the Government considering the probable hardships the teachers are likely to face as a matter of policy decision of the State. Interpreting the provisions under F.R. 24 and 26, it was also held in the said case that the provisions are equally applicable to the adhoc employees and denial and/or withdrawal of annual increments to the adhoc employees continuing in service for years together would be against fair play and justice and any decision contrary to such Rules cannot be sustained. In the case in hand, the facts and circumstances are quite different from the aforesaid cited case. Here is a case where there was no sanctioned post and the petitioners were illegally/irregularly upgraded from Muster Roll to W/C workers for which the State had to take a policy decision to regularize the services of Muster Roll Workers and W/C workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and the posts were also created/sanctioned accordingly. Here is a case where there was no sanctioned post and the petitioners were illegally/irregularly upgraded from Muster Roll to W/C workers for which the State had to take a policy decision to regularize the services of Muster Roll Workers and W/C workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and the posts were also created/sanctioned accordingly. The petitioners along with others could be accommodated only after the Cabinet decision was taken on 22.07.2005. The petitioners were brought in the regular cadre of Muster Roll Workers w.e.f. 22.07.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. unlike the case of Tarun Tamuli (supra) who were appointed on adhoc basis against sanctioned posts and appointed on regular basis after the recruitment process. The aforesaid case would not be able to rescue the petitioners for the foregoing reasons. 16. Even assuming that the petitioners were upgraded to the W/C Grade-IV employees in the year 1994, they cannot claim the status of regular employees with pay protection, etc., like the regular employees. It would depend on policy decision of the Government to give such benefit to them. Without such policy decisions, they cannot claim upgradation to W/C workers or for that matter, accommodation against the regular posts in the regular scale of pay as of right. The petitioners have failed to substantiate their claim that they were upgraded to Grade-IV W/C staff before 01.04.1993. The petitioners have rather accepted/admitted the position that they were upgraded to W/C workers without concurrence of the Finance Department and sanctioned posts, which were illegal and irregular. Furthermore, it has been accepted and found proved by sufficient materials on record that the Cabinet took policy decision only on 22.07.2005 and thereafter, the Finance Department gave its concurrence to creation of Muster Roll and W/C Grade-IV posts followed by necessary sanctions to creation of the said posts by the PWD. There is no denial of the fact that the Cabinet took the policy decision on 22.07.2005 to regularize the services of Muster Roll and W/C workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993. The petitioners have been successful to show that they were engaged as Muster Roll Workers prior to 01.04.1993 but they have miserably failed to show that they were engaged as W/C workers on or before 01.04.1993. The petitioners have been successful to show that they were engaged as Muster Roll Workers prior to 01.04.1993 but they have miserably failed to show that they were engaged as W/C workers on or before 01.04.1993. What the petitioners could establish from the records is that they were upgraded from Muster Roll Workers to W/C Electrical Jugalis by order dated 30.09.1994 passed by the respondent Executive Engineer, which were found to be illegal and irregular as discussed earlier. Even accepting that the upgradation of the petitioners from Muster Roll to W/C workers vide order dated 30.09.1994 is accepted as to have been done in a regular manner, they are stopped from claiming regularization as W/C workers due to the policy decision taken by the Government in the year 2005. No fault, therefore, could be found in the impugned order dated 05.10.2005 regularizing the services of the petitioners as M.P. staff. 17. It is to be noted that the Cabinet decision dated 22.07.2005 vis-a-vis the policy decision aforementioned has not been challenged by the petitioners for regularization of Muster Roll and W/C workers who have been working prior to 01.04.1993. If the policy decision is not challenged, it would remain valid until it is revoked, cancelled, or withdrawn and the consequential impugned order passed by the respondent authorities cannot be set aside as illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, the writ Court would refrain from exercising its power of judicial review to examine the validity of correctness of the policy decision of the Government. It is for the Government to decide as to how the Muster Roll and W/C workers should be regularized or brought under regular service and from what date, such regularization should be given effect to. It is also for the Government to decide as a part of its executive policy as to what scale of pay should be given to a particular category/grade etc. and as to whether a particular scale of pay should be given to them with retrospective or prospective effect. No further discussion in respect of this settled position of law, in my considered view, would be necessary. However, in this respect, I may appropriately and gainfully refer to State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. and as to whether a particular scale of pay should be given to them with retrospective or prospective effect. No further discussion in respect of this settled position of law, in my considered view, would be necessary. However, in this respect, I may appropriately and gainfully refer to State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Rai Chand Jain & Ors., reported in (1997) 5 SCC167 wherein it is held that the policy decision of the Government could not be considered as arbitrary and there should not be any judicial interference in such matters. That was a case where the Government by a policy decision accepted to continue the selection grade wherever available prior to 01.01.1986 and to work­out on the basis of the total strength of the cadre including permanent or temporary posts with consequential benefits including arrears of 38 months preceding the date of such decision, against which the respondents claimed grant of selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The claim of the respondents for grant of pay scale from the date prior to acquisition of qualification, in the said case, was rejected holding that it is for the Government to decide as a part of executive policy as to from which date, the arrears should be granted to the employees and the matter being an executive policy in character, the Apex Court declined to hold the decision of the Government as arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing to deny that these are the matters to be dealt with by the respondent authorities to implement the executive policy of the Government and therefore, I do not think that the impugned order issued by the respondent authorities on the basis of the public policy could be held to be illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of provisions under Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. 18. The allegation of the petitioners that they have been subjected to 'forced labour' in as much a sheer exaggeraton as complete misinterpretation of the term 'forced labour' under the labour law. What constitute 'forced labour' has been appropriately and elaborately explained in People s Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 . For better appreciation, it would be apt to quote the relevant portion from paragraph 14 of the said Judgment rendered by the Apex Court, as under: "14................................................... .......................................................'.. What constitute 'forced labour' has been appropriately and elaborately explained in People s Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 . For better appreciation, it would be apt to quote the relevant portion from paragraph 14 of the said Judgment rendered by the Apex Court, as under: "14................................................... .......................................................'.. what Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits is 'forced labour' that is labour or service which a person is forced to provide and 'force' which would make such labour or service 'forced labour' may arise in several ways. It may be physical force which may compel a person to provide labour or service to another or it may be force exerted through a legal provision such as a provision for imprisonment or fine in case the employee fails to provide labour or service or it may even be compulsion arising from hunger and poverty, want and destitution. Any factor which deprives a person of a choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be regarded as 'forced' and if labour or service is compelled as a result of such 'force', it would be 'forced labour'. Where a person is suffering from hunger or starvation, when he has no resources at all to fight disease or to feed his wife and children or even to hide their nakedness, where utter grinding poverty has broken his back and reduced him to a state of helplessness and despair and where no other employment is available to alleviate the rigour of his poverty, he would have no choice but to accept any work that comes his way, even, if the remuneration offered to him is less than the minimum wage. He would be in no position to bargain with the employer; he would have to accept what is offered to him.............." 19. I do not see any of the aforesaid conditions prevalent in the present case. There is no material to show that the petitioners were denied the minimum wages. What is rather found in the petitioners' case is that they were engaged as Muster Roll Workers with a given scale of pay and at certain stage, upgraded to W/C workers with a higher scale of pay, which, of course, was done by the respondent Executive Engineer of his own without approval and sanction from the State Government. What is rather found in the petitioners' case is that they were engaged as Muster Roll Workers with a given scale of pay and at certain stage, upgraded to W/C workers with a higher scale of pay, which, of course, was done by the respondent Executive Engineer of his own without approval and sanction from the State Government. The State Government refused to recognize the petitioners as W/C workers as it was done by the respondent Executive Engineer in the year 1994 but the State Government, subsequently, adopted the policy decision to regularize the services of Muster Roll and W/C workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993 providing pay scale of Rs. 2450-3670/- p.m. The petitioners under the aforesaid Government policy were regularized as Muster Roll Workers and they were given two options, as mentioned earlier, to protect their financial interests, which they have not yet exercised. The State Government is committed to upgrade and regularize the services of the petitioners as W/C workers engaged after 01.04.1993 as soon as another policy decision is taken in future. In the aforesaid premises, in my considered view, it would not be justified to hold that the petitioners have been subjected to 'forced labour'. 20. It is to everybody's knowledge that unemployment problem has assumed serious proportions in the present days for which the State Government has to engage large number of persons in various Government departments as Muster Roll and W/C workers for implementation of various schemes and projects. The State is to shoulder huge financial burden for engaging the Muster Roll and W/C staff for various departments. There are instances of many Muster Roll and W/C workers who have been rendering services for more than 2 decades without their services being regularized. It is understood that in the aforesaid backdrop, the State Government had taken the policy decision dated 22.07.2005 to ease out the said problem in a phase manner as it is not possible to regularize the services of all the Muster Roll and W/C workers at a time due to involvement of huge financial implications. It is not to think in the negative that the State Government would not take futher policy decision to regularize the services of Muster Roll and W/C workers engaged after 01.04.1993. 21. It is not to think in the negative that the State Government would not take futher policy decision to regularize the services of Muster Roll and W/C workers engaged after 01.04.1993. 21. Considering the grievances of the petitioners in the aforesaid facts and circumstances particularly in the light of the policy decision of the State Government to regularize the services of Muster Roll Workers and W/C workers engaged prior to 01.04.1993 with commitment of the Government to regularize the services of the petitioners and similarly situated persons in future provided another policy decision is taken by the Cabinet to regularize the services of Muster Roll Workers and W/C workers engaged after 01.04.1993, I find that the petitioners have no cause of action at this stage to get the impugned order dated 05.10.2005 quashed or set aside. The petition is lacking in merit and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 22. There would, of course, be no order as to costs.