JUDGMENT : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1-3 are represented by Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, Mr. P. Nayak appears for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner is serving as a muster roll worker in the Guwahati National Highway (NH) Division of the PWD and his grievance relates to cancellation of his regularization as a muster roll worker. The regularization for the petitioner was mistakenly granted by treating him to be a pre 1.4.1993 appointee, working continuously without break in the same Department. However when it was found that continuation of service of the petitioner was only after 1.12.1998 (not before the cut off date of 1.4.1993), the regularization order was found to be unmerited and accordingly the same was cancelled. This order was re-visited by the authorities in pursuant to the Court's direction dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure-8), in the WP (C) No. 3120/2009, but the resultant enquiry revealed that there is no record of continuous service of the petitioner prior to 1.4.1993 nor could the employee produce any such proof of earlier service. Accordingly, the cancellation of regularization, was left undisturbed by the authorities. 3. The only point argued by the learned counsel, Mr. S. Sarma is that the petitioner was engaged at the Bagori Inspection Bunglow, before he was transferred to the Guwahati National Highway Division and therefore his past service at Bagori, should be taken into account for restoration of the regularization order. 4. On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, refers to the enquiry report dated 6.4.2010 (page-46) of the Superintending Engineer, NH(P) to reflect that the petitioner was engaged in various nature of works since 1992 but he was never in continuous service, before the cutoff date of 1.4.1993 Only since his transfer to the Guwahati NH Division w.e.f. 8.11.2000, the petitioner is continuously serving in the Department. Accordingly, the Govt. Advocate submits that the Govt. policy of regularization for the pre 1.4.1993 category employees, will not apply to the petitioner whose work was intermittent and not continuous. 5. The policy declaration mentioned in the Govt. Accordingly, the Govt. Advocate submits that the Govt. policy of regularization for the pre 1.4.1993 category employees, will not apply to the petitioner whose work was intermittent and not continuous. 5. The policy declaration mentioned in the Govt. communication dated 30.9.2005 (Annexure-2) reflects that 3471 posts of different categories Work Charge staff and 8598 Grade-IV posts for muster roll workers were created, for regularizing the service of those, who were engaged prior to 1.4.1993 and are continuing in service in their respective establishment. But the requirement for regularization needed uninterrupted service and this is not the situation for the petitioner, who may have been engaged sporadically in various jobs since 1992. Only those who were engaged prior to the cutoff date of 1.4.1993 and have rendered service continuously without any break, were entitled to be regularized. Since the petitioner does not belong to this category, he was erroneously regularized on 1.10.2005 (Annexure-3) but the said error was rectified under the later decision dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure-4). 6. The cancellation of the regularization order, in the context of not satisfying the criterion for regularization, notified on 30.9.2005 (Annexure-2), is found to be the correct decision and accordingly, the reiteration of the same decision in pursuant to the enquiry findings dated 6.4.2010 (page-46), should in my view, be left undisturbed. With this declaration, the writ petition is dismissed. But it is made clear that dismissal of this case will not lead to petitioner's termination, as the muster roll worker is entitled to the benefit of the judgment dated 8.6.2017, in the Writ Appeal No. 45/2014 (State of Assam v. Upen Das), whereby, the Division Bench of this High Court has protected the continuation of the casual workers till their normal retirement age, without however the benefit of regularization. 7. With the above order, the case stands disposed of, without any order on cost.