JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. U. K. Nair, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State respondent Nos.1—3 are represented by Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned Govt. Advocate. The private respondent Nos.4—26 are however not represented. 2. The petitioner was temporarily appointed on 5.2.1987 (Annexure-A) as Junior Engineer (J.E.), on ad hoc basis under the Assam Public Services (Ad-hoc) Appointment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the APSC Ad-hoc Rules’) in the erstwhile Directorate of Rural Development Department. The appointment order provided scale of pay at Rs.620-25-745-EB-35-1315 P.M. and during initial years, the J.E. was granted due increments from time to time. But since 1997, as his service was not regularized his salary was pegged at the first stage of the pay scale. The ad-hoc appointee superannuated on 1.10.2012 and he seeks direction for retrospective regularization of service as a J.E., so that service benefits by way of pension etc., can be received by him. 3. The private respondent Nos.4—26 were engaged as J.Es. on muster roll/ casual basis in the Panchayat & Rural Development (P. & R.D.) Department but under the Notification dated 26.2.2003 (Annexure-D), their services were regularized. The departmental counter affidavit filed on 30.5.2011 reflects that 23 J.E.s were regularized in service through a Cabinet Decision and also because of the High Court’s direction dated 23.9.1998, in the Civil Rule No.4411/95, in respect of muster roll/casual employees. Only those of this category engaged prior to the cutoff date of 1.4.1993, were considered for regularization. Reference is also made in the departmental affidavit to the Court’s direction dated 4.3.1997, in the Civil Rule No.2278/1993, for the regularization of the muster roll/casual J.E.s in the P. & R.D. Department. 4. The Civil Rule No.2278/1993 was filed by one Kamaleswar Kalita, appointed as J.E. on 3.1.1989, for 89 days, on fixed salary of Rs.1000/- P.M. and he sought Court direction for regularization of service and to grant him the regular pay scale of the post. The Division Bench after due consideration of the long service rendered by the petitioner, under its judgment dated 4.3.1997, directed the State Government to formulate a scheme for regularization of the service of the petitioner, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility condition and availability of vacancies. This direction was made applicable for all others, who are similarly situated like the petitioner J.E. Kamaleswar Kalita. 5. This direction was made applicable for all others, who are similarly situated like the petitioner J.E. Kamaleswar Kalita. 5. Encouraged by the judgment for the petitioner in the Civil Rule No.2278/1993, the petitioner as an ad-hoc appointee, filed the Civil Rule No. 1983/1997, along with two of his colleagues, seeking regularization of their service. The learned Judge referred to the Division Bench judgment dated 4.3.1997, in the Civil Rule No.2278/1993 (Kamaleswar Kalita vs. State of Assam & others) and issued similar direction on 9.2.1998 (Annexure-C), for formulating a scheme for considering regularization of the petitioners. 6. In the additional affidavit filed on 27.6.2011 for the P&RD Department, an attempt was made to distinguish the claim of the J.Es. appointed on muster roll/casual capacity and those (like the petitioner) appointed under the APSC Ad-hoc Rules. It was avered that the Government has not taken any decision for regularization of the J.Es., appointed under the APSC Ad-hoc Rules. However annexed to govt. the additional affidavits were the minutes of the meeting of 20.9.2010, presided over by the Chief Secretary of Assam. The proceeding shows that the regularization of the appointees under Regulation 3(f) of the APSC Regulation was under active consideration of the Government. It was stipulated in the minutes that those who have served for five years or more as 3(f) appointees and who had appeared before the APSC at least once without success, should be taken into consideration for regularization. The Dy. Secretary of the P. & R.D. Department informed that there are 6 casual Engineers serving on ad-hoc basis and accordingly the Chief Secretary advised him to submit a detailed picture of the 3(f) appointees. 7. Information on the J.E.s appointed in the P&RD Department under Regulation 3(f) of the APSC Regulation, was provided in the statement (annexed to the additional affidavit) and it reflected, inter alia, that 6 such ad-hoc J.E.s were appointed in the P. & R.D. Department, under Regulation 3(f). Reference was also made in the same document about the Court’s direction in the Civil Rule No. 1983/1997, filed by the present petitioner and his two colleagues namely Ananta Gogoi and Pratul Ch. Chakraborty. It was mentioned in Para 5 & 6 of the statement that the petitioner and five other J.Es. appeared before the APSC and although they were selected, they could not be appointed due to want of posts. 8. Chakraborty. It was mentioned in Para 5 & 6 of the statement that the petitioner and five other J.Es. appeared before the APSC and although they were selected, they could not be appointed due to want of posts. 8. The above developments reflects that the Government had decided to regularize the service of the ad-hoc J.E.s appointed under the APSC Regulation, provided such Engineers have completed five years of service and had appeared before the APSC. But unfortunately for the petitioner, the matter was left un-finalized and in the meantime the petitioner had to superannuate from service on 1.10.2012, without the benefit of regularization or pension. 9.1 Arguing for regularization of the ad-hoc J.E., the learned senior counsel Mr. U.K. Nair refers to this Court’s observation on 6.6.2011, on the comparable status of the muster roll/casual J.E.s, who were regularized vis-a-vis the J.E.s, appointed on ad-hoc basis, who were not regularized. The Court noted that regularization of the 23 casual J.E.s was done in pursuant to the Division Bench judgment dated 4.3.1997, in the Civil Rule No.2278/1993. 9.2 Pointed attention was drawn by the counsel to the averments of the retired Dy. Secretary Makhan Chandra Chakrabarty in the additional affidavit, where he corrected the previous stand and the same was noted by the Court in the following words: “………….. 4. That I humbly submit and state that the draft para-wise report on the writ petition was prepared by the concerned Branch Officer dealing with the subject wherein it was stated that the services of the 23 Junior Engineers were regularized through APSC. It was sent to me for finalization. I overlooked to verify the records for which statements has been made in the affidavit which was not factually correct. In point of fact, Junior Engineers were regularized pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 4.3.1997 in Civil Rule No.2278/93. ………………..” 9.3. The learned Judge was of the prima facie view that the differential treatment of the casual/muster roll J.Es. vis-à-vis the ad-hoc J.E.s is discriminatory. It was also observed that the petitioner has been in service since 1987, whereas the casual/muster roll J.E.s were appointed much later and yet the later group was regularized. 9.4. ………………..” 9.3. The learned Judge was of the prima facie view that the differential treatment of the casual/muster roll J.Es. vis-à-vis the ad-hoc J.E.s is discriminatory. It was also observed that the petitioner has been in service since 1987, whereas the casual/muster roll J.E.s were appointed much later and yet the later group was regularized. 9.4. The petitioner contends that when he has served for 25 years on ad-hoc basis and the muster roll/casual category J.E.s serving for lesser period in the P&RD Department have been regularized, there can be no justification for unequal treatment of the two groups in the same department. 9.5. Referring to the High Court’s direction dated 9.2.1998 (Annexure-C), in the Civil Rule No. 1983/1997, Mr. Nair submits that the Government was required to formulate a scheme for considering regularization of J.E.s, appointed on ad-hoc basis and since the matter was processed at the highest level, as can be seen from the minutes of the meeting held on 20.9.2010, the consideration should have been taken to its logical conclusion, without midway abandonment of the process. 9.6. The petitioner points out that he fulfills the criteria stipulated in the Chief Secretary’s meeting of 20.9.2010, for getting the benefit of regularization, since he has qualified in the APSC’s examination and also served for around 25 years. Therefore the denial of regularization is contended to be unfair and discriminatory. 10.1. On the other hand, Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned Govt. Advocate submits that the ad-hoc appointment made under the APSC Ad-hoc Rules, can continue only for one year and those who are appointed under Regulation 3(f), are disentitled to continue in service beyond one year, after they were appointed. 10.2 The Govt. Advocate further submits that the J.Es. appointed on casual/muster roll basis were regularized in pursuant to a Cabinet Decision to confer benefits to those who were appointed prior to 1.4.1993 and since similar policy decision has not been taken for the ad-hoc appointees, there should be no Court direction for regularization of this category. 11. The petitioner and the private respondent Nos.4—26 had served for long as J.Es. in the P. & R.D. Department but only those who were appointed on muster roll/casual basis, were offered the benefit of regularization. 11. The petitioner and the private respondent Nos.4—26 had served for long as J.Es. in the P. & R.D. Department but only those who were appointed on muster roll/casual basis, were offered the benefit of regularization. If the policy decision of the Government envisages the cutoff date of 1.4.1993 and regularization was offered to only those appointed prior to the cutoff date, the petitioner having been appointed on 5.2.1987, is clearly on the same footing as the regularized group, at least on the parameter, of length of service. 12. As earlier noted, the regularization of the J.Es., appointed on muster roll/casual basis was triggered by the Division Bench verdict of 4.3.1997, in the Civil Rule No.2278/1993 (Kamaleswar Kalita vs. State of Assam & others) but similar direction was also issued for the present petitioner on 9.2.1998 (Annexure-C), in the Civil Rule No.1983/1997. Hence on this aspect also, the petitioner and the private respondents are entitled to similar treatment from the State. 13. The appointment of the petitioner under the APSC Ad-hoc Rules, cannot be an obstacle for his regularization, as such ad-hoc appointment under the Rules, can continue only for one year and here the petitioner has served without break, for about 25 years (1987—2012). 14. The deliberation made in the meeting headed by the Chief Secretary of Assam on 20.9.2010, reflects the Government process to regularize the service of the J.Es., appointed under Regulation 3(f) of the APSC Ad-hoc Rules. But unfortunately although particulars of the petitioner and other 5 J.E.s were furnished in a statement form, the authorities have failed to finalize the process. More importantly, although counter/additional affidavits have been filed by the responders, none of them has explained as to why, the resolution adopted in the Chief Secretary’s meeting of 20.9.2010, were not taken to its logical conclusion. 15. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for directing the State Authorities, for considering his regularization, to enable him to receive limited relief of pension, in pursuant to the decision taken in the Chief Secretary’s meeting held on 20.9.2010. 16. 15. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for directing the State Authorities, for considering his regularization, to enable him to receive limited relief of pension, in pursuant to the decision taken in the Chief Secretary’s meeting held on 20.9.2010. 16. As the petitioner was drawing pay at the first stage of the pay scale since 1997 (although he was earlier paid increments between 1987—1996), the respondents should consider regularization by fixation of pay for the petitioner on notional basis, for the service rendered by him from 5.2.1987 to 1.10.2012. Since regularization is to be considered only for pensionary benefits, the service of the J.E. can either be regularized against an available vacancy or by creation of a supernumerary post, on a day prior to his superannuation. For determining the payable pension, the authorities should take into account the ad-hoc service rendered by the J.E., until his regularization, in terms of this order. The exercise for regularization in terms of this direction should be completed expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. It is ordered accordingly. 17. To facilitate the exercise, the petitioner will furnish a copy of this order and other necessary documents to the competent authority of the P. & R.D. Department, so that the superannuated employee can receive pension, in terms of this direction. 18. With the above order, the case stands allowed, without any order on cost. The copy of this order be furnished to Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, the learned Govt. Advocate, for onward communication.