JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers: “(a) Arrear amounts of enhancement of her remuneration to Rs.9,000.00 (Rupees Nine Thousand) as made vide order dated 4th June 2018 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure.9) shall not be made immediately. (b) The service of the Petitioner shall not be regularized in service as Grade-IV employee as a onetime measure vide Notification dated 31.08.2015 issued by the Registrar (Administration) Gauhati High Court, Guwahati (Annexure.8) and (c) Alternatively, the service of the Petitioner shall not be regularized in a sanctioned post of Grade-IV in the establishment of the respondent no. 3. And after perusal of the records, causes shown, if any, and upon hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass any other appropriate order or direction as your Lordships deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case so as to grant adequate relief/reliefs to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was appointed as contingent Manual Worker (Peon) vide order dated 21.08.2009 at a fixed pay of Rs.1500/- and was posted in the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. The remuneration was enhanced from time to time and vide an order dated 04.06.2018, the pay was enhanced to Rs.9,000/- per month. Since, the service of the petitioner was not regularized and in the meantime, an Office Memorandum was issued on 31.08.2015, the petitioner was aggrieved and accordingly had filed the instant writ petition. It is also submitted that a recruitment process for regular employment was held in which the petitioner had participated but could not qualify. 3. The claim is mainly based on a notification dated 31.08.2015 issued by the Registrar (Admin.)-cum-In Charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati. 4. I have heard Shri Surajit Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri HK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department. 5. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, had informed this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, on 05.09.2022 the petitioner was released from service by citing financial crunch. I have also heard Shri HK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department. 5. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, had informed this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, on 05.09.2022 the petitioner was released from service by citing financial crunch. On the merits of the case, he has submitted that by working for a long period of time, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 31.08.2015. It has also been submitted that salaries for 23 months were not paid to the petitioner and a direction should be given to that effect. He has also submitted that the experience gathered by the petitioner should have been taken into consideration in the recruitment process which was not done. 6. Per contra, Shri H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court has submitted that though the claim is based on the Notification dated 31.08.2015, the same is not at all applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that the notification contemplates 10 (ten) years of service as on 14.08.2015 and on the said date, the petitioner did not complete the requisite period of 10(ten) years of service. He has also highlighted the aspect that the notification contemplated one time exercise and the same cannot be applied at a subsequent stage. 7. Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has endorsed the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The rival contentions have been duly considered. 9. It is not in dispute that the claim for regularization of service is based on a Notification dated 31.08.2015. The relevant aspect of the said notification states as follows: “With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that the High Court has been pleased resolve that the services of the contingent workers working in the subordinate Courts of Assam, who have completed 10(ten) or more years as on 14.08.2015, be regularized as a one time measure by the respective Appointing Authority, in order of their seniority, in the concerned Establishment, subject to availability of vacancy in Grade IV post(s). Further, a copy of the appointment letter should be furnished to the undersigned as and when the same is issued. Further, a copy of the appointment letter should be furnished to the undersigned as and when the same is issued. This is your kind information and necessary action.” 10. The notification contemplates that contingent workers working in the Subordinate Courts of Assam, who have completed 10 or more years as on 14.08.2015 would be regularized as a one time measure. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner as contingent worker was on 21.08.2009 and therefore, as on the date fixed i.e., 14.08.2015, the petitioner did not complete 10 (ten) years of service. That apart, the said exercise for regularization was done as a one-time measure and in this regard, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel of the High Court who has contended that the notification cannot be taken into recourse for seeking regularization at a subsequent stage. 11. This Court has also looked into the aspect of the notification vis-à-vis the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . In the said case, it has been laid down that regularization cannot be sought or granted as a matter of right and certain preconditions have been laid down which is extracted hereinbelow: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in paragraph 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 courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization 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 above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularization 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 above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a onetime 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 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 within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 12. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) and a catena of other decisions in the line, this Court is of the opinion that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right on the strength of the Notification dated 31.08.2015. The said notification also does not appear to help followed the mandate laid down in the aforesaid case of Umadevi (supra). In any case, the said notification contemplated completion of 10 years of service as on 14.08.2015 which admittedly was not fulfilled by the petitioner and as observed above, it was only a one time measure which cannot be extended at a subsequent period. In all practical sense, the said Notification has spent its force and cannot be taken up for enforcement at a belated stage. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no relief regarding regularization can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. In all practical sense, the said Notification has spent its force and cannot be taken up for enforcement at a belated stage. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no relief regarding regularization can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. It is however observed that in case there is any pending salaries of the petitioner, the petitioner may submit a representation before the appropriate authority, namely the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon and in case such representation is filed, the same is required to be considered and disposed of by a speaking order. If the claim is found to be bona fide and justified, the arrear salary is to be released to the petitioner expeditiously. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of, in the manner indicated above.