JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. A. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Handloom and Textile and Sericulture Department, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, for respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the communication dated 04.07.2022 by the Director of Handloom and Textile, Government of Assam to the Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, whereby, the rejection of the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioner as Lower Division Assistant (in short LDA) by the Government has been conveyed. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction for regularization of her service and to release her arrear salary since April, 2016 to February, 2022. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was temporarily allowed to officiate as LDA in the office of the Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, vide order dated 04.09.1992 and since, then she is performing her duties diligently and to the satisfaction of all concerned. She has joined her service on 07.09.1992 and has been continuously working in the post of LDA. 4. Despite her several approaches for regularization and payment of monthly salary since the month of March, 1997, when the respondent authorities failed to redress, the petitioner approached this Court being WP(C) No. 6538/1999 praying for regularization of her services as well as payment of her salary and allowances. This Court vide order dated 30.03.2006 has disposed of the said writ petition, which is reproduced herein below:- "In the above premises, on a consideration of the materials on record in their entirety, I close this petition with a direction to the respondent No. 2, the Director, Handloom and Textile, Assam, Guwahati-5, to initiate a process for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services. Needless to say, while assessing her suitability for the post, the past services rendered by her would be taken note of to provide weightage to her claim. It is submitted at the Bar that presently the petitioner is aged about 37 years. Needless to say, while assessing her suitability for the post, the past services rendered by her would be taken note of to provide weightage to her claim. It is submitted at the Bar that presently the petitioner is aged about 37 years. Keeping in mind that the petitioner had been inducted to the post in question at a point of time when she was of the eligible age, the respondent authorities while considering her case would also leniently look into that aspect of the matter and would not disqualify her on that count. As the petitioner is waiting in expectation since long, the exercise indicated herein above would be completed within a period of six weeks of, receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. It is, however, made clear that this Court hereby has neither directed, to appoint the petitioner in her post on regular basis nor regularize her service. It would be within the discretion of the concerned respondent authority to take an appropriate decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law. No costs." 5. It is contended by the petitioner that during the course of her employment, a process was initiated for making regular appointment to the post of LDA and accordingly, the petitioner had offered her candidature for which she was called for interview in which she appeared. The Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, while the petitioner was continuously serving, has requested the Director, of Handloom and Textile for taking necessary steps for regularization of the petitioner service in the post of LDA. However, the process could not be finalized and the petitioner continued to discharge her duties as officiating LDA. 6. In the meantime, the respondent authorities pursuant to the order of this Court have released the arrear salary of the petitioner. However, the case of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered. 7. It is contended that the respondent authorities again failed to pay her salary and other dues since April 2016, thereby causing great hardship to the petitioner. Vide impugned communication dated 07.04.2022, the Director of Handloom and Textile informed the Controlling Authority of the petitioner i.e. Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, that the proposal for regularization of the service of the petitioner has been rejected. 8. Vide impugned communication dated 07.04.2022, the Director of Handloom and Textile informed the Controlling Authority of the petitioner i.e. Superintendent of Handloom and Textile, Golaghat, that the proposal for regularization of the service of the petitioner has been rejected. 8. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the case of the petitioner for regularization as LDA and non-payment of her legitimate dues of the petitioner since April 2016, this present petition has been instituted challenging the aforesaid rejection and for payment of her arrear salary since April, 2016 to February, 2022. 9. Mr. A. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities in withholding the due and legitimate salary of the petitioner since April, 2016 to February, 2022 and the rejection of the proposal for regularization of the services of the petitioner vide the impugned communication dated 04.07.2022 is totally illegal. He submits that the petitioner was initially appointed temporarily as LDA and she has been discharging her duties with due diligent and sincerity and therefore, she is entitled to be regularized and as such, the non-payment of the arrear salary and the regularization of the services of the petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and pay the arrear salary of the petitioner from April, 2016 to February, 2022 forthwith. 10. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Handloom and Textile and Sericulture Department, submits that in compliance of the order dated 30.03.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 6538/99, an instruction was issued from the Directorate to the Superintendent, Handloom & Textile, Golaghat to draw and disburse due salary of petitioner, who is officiating as LDA under the establishment vide office letter No. DHTE. 22/2000/23 dated 07.03.2000. The Superintendent, Handloom & Textile, Golaghat had drawn and disbursed the pending due salary of the petitioner. However, the Treasury Officer, Golaghat refused to honour the pay bill of the petitioner from the month April, 2016 for non-deduction of GPF and requested the authority to furnished present status of the case regarding regularization of services of the petitioner. 11. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the respondent No. 2 requested the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. 11. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the respondent No. 2 requested the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Handloom & Textiles and Sericulture Department, to regularize the service of petitioner, an officiating LDA in sanctioned and vacant post under the Directorate of Handloom & Textiles and Sericulture, Assam vide office letter dated 19.08.2016. However, the Govt. informed that Finance (SIU) Department in accordance with Office Memorandum No. FEC(II) 49/2010/118 dated 16-06-2012 has regretted the said proposal for regularization of services of the petitioner vide letter dated 06.04.2022. He submits that it is a fact that due to some mistakes the name of petitioner was wrongly included in the provisional inter-seniority list of LDA published vide dated 26.08.2021. However, later on it was corrected. 12. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, submits that in pursuance to the Govt. letter No. HTS. 263/2016/30 dated 06.04.2022, the Director, Handloom & Textiles and Sericulture, Assam has informed the Superintendent, Handloom & Textiles, Golaghat vide office letter No. DHTE. 103/2015/128 dated 04.07.2022 that the Govt. has regretted the proposal for regularization of service in respect of the petitioner. 13. Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department submits that the Handloom & Textiles and Sericulture Department had submitted a proposal to Finance Department (SIU no. FSI. 279/2020) on 22.06.2020 for regularization of service of the petitioner. On examination of the proposal, the Finance Department, has observed that the petitioner was temporarily allowed to officiate as LDA under the establishment of the Superintendent of Handloom & Textiles, Golaghat, since 04.09.1992 against sanctioned post without observing any recruitment procedure. 14. Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, submits that as per the order of Directorate of Handloom & Textiles dated 04.09.1992, the petitioner was temporarily allowed to officiate as LDA who was previously officiating as LDA in the establishment of Superintendent of Handloom & Textiles, Golaghat, till the post is regularly filled up. The proposal for regularization could not be considered in view of restriction on such regularization by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of State of Karnataka -vs- Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and this Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide orders dated 17.05.2006 in W.P (C) No. 6222 of 2003 (Sri Jitendra kalita -vs- State of Assam and others and 173 other connected cases. The Govt. of Assam had filed an affidavit in Misc. Case no. The Govt. of Assam had filed an affidavit in Misc. Case no. MC 597/2012 in W.P.(C) (Taken Up) No. 24/2007 seeking leave of the Hon'ble High Court for framing and implementation of a policy for regularization of left out Work charged, Muster Roll and similarly placed workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993. The Hon'ble High Court, however, declined to grant the prayer of the State Government. The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 27.03.2012 passed in connection with Misc. case No. MC. 597/2012 held that the Court cannot give direction to the State Govt. to adopt a policy which may be in violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, submits that consequent to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and order of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court dated 27.03.2012 and in pursuance of the approval of the Cabinet dated 07.06.2012, Govt. of Assam in Finance Dept issued an O.M vide no. FEC (II).49/2010/118 dated 16.062012, whereby the following decisions were taken- A. No more regularization of services of Work-Charged, Muster Roll or similarly placed workers can be undertaken bythe State Govt. even if such workers were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and rendered continuous service without break. B. No more regularization can be undertaken by creating supernumerary post for one day in respect of those W.C. and M.R. workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 but died or attained the age of superannuation after rendering continuous services uninterruptedly. 16. He submits that the petitioner, admittedly, was appointed on purely temporary basis as per the proposal submitted by the concerned Administrative Department, Handloom Textiles & Sericulture, against a sanctioned post without observing any recruitment procedure. In view of the restriction imposed by the Govt. of Assam vide O.M dated 16.062012 on regularization of Work charged and Muster Roll and similarly placed workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993, the proposal of the petitioner for regularization of her service which was received in the year 2020 was rightly rejected. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 18. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 04.09.1992 to officiate as LDA on a vacant and sanctioned post and she has been allowed to continue on the temporary basis since then. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 18. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 04.09.1992 to officiate as LDA on a vacant and sanctioned post and she has been allowed to continue on the temporary basis since then. Record reveals that the petitioner was also allowed to officiate as LDA prior to the aforesaid said order. 19. Records further reveals that the respondent authorities in the Department of Handloom & Textiles and Sericulture have initiated a proposal for regularization of the service of the petitioner from time to time. However, the Department by the impugned order 04.07.2022 has conveyed the rejection of proposal for regularization of service of the petitioner. 20. This Court vide order dated 30.03.2006 while disposing of the WP(C) 6538/1999 has directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her service. It has observed that while assessing her suitability for the post, the past services rendered by her would be taken note of to provide weightage to her claim and since the petitioner was aged about 37 years at that point of time. Keeping in mind that the petitioner had been inducted to the post in question at a point of time when she was of the eligible age, the respondent authorities while considering her case would also leniently look into that aspect of the matter and would not disqualify her on that count. However, it has made clear that the Court has neither directed to appoint the petitioner in her post on regular basis nor regularize her service and it would be within the discretion of the concerned respondent authority to take an appropriate decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law. 21. The stand of the respondent Finance Department is basically that in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (3) (Supra) and order of this Court pursuant to which and Office Memorandum vide order dated 16.06.2012 was issued to the effect that no more regularization of services of Work-Charged, Muster Roll and similarly placed workers can be undertaken by the State Govt. even if such workers were engaged prior to 01.04.1993 and rendered continuous service without break and the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis as per the proposal submitted by the concerned Administrative Department, the Handloom Textiles & Sericulture against sanctioned post without observing any recruitment procedure, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. 22. It is seen that the petitioner has been allowed to officiate as LDA not only by the order dated 04.09.1992 but prior to said appointment order on a vacant and sanctioned post till today. It is also admitted position that the petitioner has not been paid the arrear salary since April,2016 to February,2022. The law on the regularization of the temporary employees, who has been allowed to continue more than ten years has been settled, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of Umadevi (3), (Supra) which is reproduced herein under: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappall, R.N. Nanjundappa12 and B.N. Nagarajans and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take e steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion f within six months from this date. The process must be set in motion f within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 23. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , has considered the law on regularization of the temporary employees, which is reproduced herein under: “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. · Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. · Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. · Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. · Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. · Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shripal and Another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 , has recalled and reiterated the observation made in the case of Jaggo (Supra) and held, which is reproduced hereinunder: “15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shripal and Another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 , has recalled and reiterated the observation made in the case of Jaggo (Supra) and held, which is reproduced hereinunder: “15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows adverse an inference under well- established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. 24. In the present case as noted above, the petitioner has been admittedly allowed to officiate as LDA in the Department of Handloom and Textile in the office of Superintendent, Handloom and Textiles Department, Golaghat without any break prior to 1992 till date and the petitioner has not been paid the arrear salary from April, 2016 to February, 2022. Considered above, it would be unfair and unjustified if the case of the petitioner is not considered for regularization and the legitimate due salary for which the petitioner has rendered her service as LDA even on officiating basis. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization as well as for payment of her due salary for the period which she had been denied. 25. In view of the discussion made herein above and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be fairly considered for regularization of her service and be paid her due salary and allowances for the period for which she has not been paid. 26. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as the petitioner it has been continuously serving as Officiating LDA for 33 years on a sanctioned post and to pay the arrear salary from April, 2016 to February, 2022 within a period of 5(five) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 27. 27. The writ petition stands allowed, in terms of the above observation and direction. No order as to cost.