JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Asaam appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 6. I have also heard Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court primarily for two reliefs. The first relief being that the Petitioner has not been paid his salary since May, 2025 and the second relief is that a direction should be issued to the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to regularize the Petitioner in the Office of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with immediate effect. 3. This Court had issued notice on 18.06.2025 and sought for appropriate instructions. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5 wherein it has been mentioned that the Petitioner was engaged as casual Grade-IV worker on a need basis and not through any formal recruitment process for regular appointment. It was further mentioned that the services of the Petitioner was continued from time to time as per requirement and availability of the budgetary sanction. The Petitioner’s fixed remuneration was Rs.9,000/- per month and he was duly paid his remuneration till April, 2025. For the month of May, 2025, the salary bill of the Petitioner was prepared and submitted to the Respondent No.6 but the same was returned by the Respondent No.6 citing objection based on OM No.FA(III)/24/92/397 dated 16.12.2000 as well as Rule 12(A)(3) of the Delegation of the Financial Power Rules, 2022 which mandates that the DDOs are not authorized to engage casual employees on wages without prior financial concurrence from the Finance Department, Government of Assam. 5. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of that there was no financial approval granted by the Finance Department for the purpose of engagement of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026. 6. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who appears on behalf of the Finance Department submits that in terms with Article 202 of the Constitution, the annual financial statement which is prepared is based upon proposals duly submitted. 6. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who appears on behalf of the Finance Department submits that in terms with Article 202 of the Constitution, the annual financial statement which is prepared is based upon proposals duly submitted. The Petitioner herein who was appointed only as a casual employee, such funds for engaging casual employees would not feature in the annual financial statement unless due proposals were submitted. The learned Additional Advocate General, Assam further submitted that in the instant case, there was no such proposal submitted and as such, the question of there being any financial approval for engagement of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026 did not arise. 7. This Court duly takes note of that this very aspect of the matter was brought to the attention of this Court on 05.08.2025 whereby this Court passed an order thereby directing the Respondent No.5 to submit a proposal with justification to the Judicial Department of the Government of Assam and the Judicial Department of the Government of Assam shall thereupon forward the same to the Finance Department for consideration of the proposal as regards granting of ex-post facto approval for the period sought for in the proposal. 8. It appears that thereupon, a proposal was duly submitted by the Respondent No.5 to the Judicial Department of the Government of Assam and on the basis thereof, the Finance Department of the Government of Assam had granted a ex-post facto approval and this aspect of the matter would be clear from the documents which have been kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 9. Mr. G. Baishya, the learned Standing counsel who appears on behalf of the Gauhati High Court as well as the Respondent No.5 submits that in view of the ex-post facto approval granted in respect to the engagement of the Petitioner under the establishment of the Respondent No.5 for the period from 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026, the Petitioner would now be paid his dues. 10. Taking into account the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner’s first grievance which has been set out in the writ petition stands redressed. 11. The second issue which is involved in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court should pass appropriate directions directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioner in the establishment of the Respondent Nos. 11. The second issue which is involved in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court should pass appropriate directions directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioner in the establishment of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 12. Mr. S. Chamaria, the learned counsel appearing the Petitioner submitted that taking into account that the Petitioner has been working since 2014, the Petitioner ought to have been regularized taking into account that similarly situated persons have also been regularized. 13. Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka VS. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 submitted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had categorically observed that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised for issuance of direction for regularization of employees. 14. This Court further finds it very relevant to take note of another very important aspect of the matter which the learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out is in respect to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1735 and the learned counsel submitted that though the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) had observed that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to issue a direction for regularization of the employee, however in the recent judgment i.e. in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) , the Supreme Court had made it very clear that when the authorities, who are State employs and engages a person for a long duration on a temporary/Ad-hoc basis and without creation of a post in order to deprive the person of his legitimate dues, the said aspect is justiciable. 15. This Court having perused the materials on record does not find that such a plea have been raised or the Petitioner has approached the Respondent Authorities in that aspect. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that an opportunity should be granted to the Petitioner to approach the Respondent Authorities in that respect and depending upon what steps are being taken, the Petitioner can be left at liberty to take resort to such course as available under law. 16. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that an opportunity should be granted to the Petitioner to approach the Respondent Authorities in that respect and depending upon what steps are being taken, the Petitioner can be left at liberty to take resort to such course as available under law. 16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) As there has been an ex-post facto approval granted by the Finance Department for the period from 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026, the Respondent No.5 shall release the dues to the Petitioner as per his entitlement. (ii) The same be done at the earliest and within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of the present order. (iii) This Court grants the liberty to the Petitioner to submit a representation before the concerned Respondent authorities in respect to his claim for regularization. Depending on the outcome, the Petitioner would be entitled to resort to such legal remedies as available under law. 17. Before parting with the records, this Court finds it very pertinent to make an observation in respect to the practice which is being followed and more particularly in the present case. It is noticed that unlike permanent employees, there has to be a financial approval obtained prior to continuing the services of casual/temporary/Ad-hoc employees or at least a proposal submitted before hand that the engagement of the casual/temporary/Ad-hoc employee would be required. It is seen that a practice is sought to be adopted whereby the Authority concerned after appointing the casual/temporary/Ad-hoc employees fails to take necessary steps in that regard. On account of such inaction, difficulties arise not only upon casual/temporary/Ad-hoc employees in getting their regular pay but also upon the State who has to pay from its resources. This Court is of the opinion that the Finance Department, Government of Assam may consider taking appropriate steps for resolving these problems by issuance of necessary guidelines/circulars/notification etc.