JUDGMENT : (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) Heard Mr. Arabinda Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3; and Ms. Usha Das, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4, 5 & 6. However, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to regularize her service against an equivalent post of Extra Writer with retrospective effect i.e. 01.08.1992, by maintaining parity with other Extra Writers who were so regularized against the post of Lower Division Assistant with effect from the said date. 3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under: The husband of the petitioner while being engaged as an Extra Writer on daily wage basis, had died-in-harness on 06.10.1985. It is projected in the writ petition that the petitioner was, thereafter, with effect from November, 1985, allowed to work as an Extra Writer on daily wage basis. However, it is also projected by the petitioner that in the official records of the Department, her engagement as an Extra Writer has been so shown to have been made w.e.f. 18.09.1989. The petitioner, herein, contends that she is also a member of “All Assam Extra Writers Association”. The said Association had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1393 of 1989, praying for regularization of the services of the members of the Association who were all working as Extra Writers on daily wage basis. This Court, vide order, dated 07.11.1991, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by directing that the members of the petitioners’ Association who had put in 3 years of satisfactory continuous services in the capacity of an Extra Writer, shall be absorbed against the post of Lower Division Assistant on regular basis with all consequential benefits. It is to be noticed here that the Government of Assam had taken a decision to regularize the services of the Extra Writers who had put in 7 years of continuous service as on 22.12.1988. It is to be noticed here that the Government of Assam had taken a decision to regularize the services of the Extra Writers who had put in 7 years of continuous service as on 22.12.1988. The said decision mandating an Extra Writer to have rendered at least 7 years of continuous service for being considered for absorption against a regular vacant post, was challenged by the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 1393 of 1989 and this Court, on consideration of the issue, had directed that such regularization would be permissible in respect of the Extra Writers who have put in 3 years of satisfactory continuous service. The respondent authorities, thereafter, in terms of the directions passed by this Court vide order, dated 07.11.1991, proceeded to issue an order, dated 10.05.1994, regularizing the services of persons named therein, as Extra Writers with retrospective effect i.e. 01.08.1992. The name of the petitioner, herein, admittedly, does not figure in the list of persons whose services were regularized by the respondent authorities vide order, dated 10.05.1994. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the authorities praying for consideration of her case for absorption/regularization with retrospective effect as was so done in respect of the other Extra Writers working along with her at the relevant point of time on daily wage basis. The respondent authorities had processed the prayer of the petitioner. However, no order having been issued towards regularizing her service, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the facts as noticed hereinabove and has submitted that the petitioner, herein, being engaged as an Extra Writer on daily wage basis w.e.f. November, 1985, she has to be deemed to have completed 3 years of continuous service as an Extra Writer, at least, till 07.11.1991, when the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1393 of 1989, was disposed of by this Court. 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel, has also submitted that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement and in the event, she was not favoured with an order, regularizing her service, either, as an Extra Writer, and/or, against any other equivalent post in the Department with retrospective effect i.e. 01.08.1992; the petitioner would be left with no means of sustenance after she has reached the age of superannuation. 6. In the above premises, Mr. 6. In the above premises, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e. 01.08.1992, with all consequential benefits. 7. Per contra, Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, in terms of the official records maintained by the respondent authorities, having been engaged only w.e.f. 18.07.1989, she cannot be held to have completed 3 years of continuous service as an Extra Writer, at least, on the date when the said writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1393 of 1989, was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 07.11.1991. 8. Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, by referring to the representation, dated 19.08.2008, submitted by the petitioner in the matter before the Inspector General of Registration, Assam, has contended that therein, the petitioner had projected that she had been working against the post of Extra Writer since 18.07.1989. The learned standing counsel has also submitted that the petitioner having been admitted that she has been working as an Extra Writer w.e.f. 18.07.1989 and she having not completed 3 years of continuous service as on 07.11.1991, i.e. the date of disposal of Civil Rule No. 1393 of 1989; the petitioner’s case for regularization of her service was not considered and no illegality, in this connection, was committed by the respondent authorities. 9. Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, has further submitted, on instruction, that the petitioner after working as an Extra Writer on daily wage basis, had voluntarily withdrawn from the said engagement before July, 2019. In this connection, the learned standing counsel has placed reliance on a communication issued by the Sub-Registrar, Golakganj, dated 10.07.2019, to the Asstt. Inspector General of Registration, Assam, wherein, it was held that the petitioner, herein, has not been continuing in her service as an Extra Writer. 10. Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, has accordingly submitted that the petitioner, in addition to being not eligible for regularization of her service, would also not be entitled to the benefits as made available by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam v. Upen Das, reported in 2017 4 GLR 493 (GAU). 11. Mr. Handique, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, has accordingly submitted that the petitioner, in addition to being not eligible for regularization of her service, would also not be entitled to the benefits as made available by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam v. Upen Das, reported in 2017 4 GLR 493 (GAU). 11. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. The materials brought on record including the contention of the petitioner in this writ petition and the annexures appended thereto, would go to reveal that the petitioner was engaged as an Extra Writer w.e.f. 18.07.1989, only, on daily wage basis and accordingly, the case of the petitioner has to be so reckoned for regularization of her service by reckoning that she was engaged in the above capacity w.e.f. 18.07.1989, only. 13. This Court, vide order, dated 07.11.1991, passed in Civil Rule No. 1393 of 1989, having directed the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the Extra Writers who have put in 3 years of satisfactory continuous service against the post of Lower Division Assistant with all consequential benefits, the petitioner, herein, having not completed 3 years of continuous service w.e.f. 18.07.1989, till the date of passing of the said judgment & order; was rightly excluded from the purview of regularization of the services of the Extra Writers as effected by the respondent authorities vide order, dated 10.05.1994. The petitioner, accordingly, would not be entitled to have her service regularized w.e.f. 01.08.1992, by maintaining parity with those persons who were so regularized vide the said order, dated 10.05.1994. 14. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, has also not brought on record any material and/or made any contention to the effect that persons engaged along with her in the year 1989 and/or thereafter, were also regularized in their services, either, vide order, dated 10.05.1994, and/or, thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner not having acquired the requisite eligibility criteria for regularization of her service, her case was rightly excluded from the purview of such regularization while the respondent authorities had issued the order, dated 10.05.1994, regularizing the services of the eligible Extra Writers. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner not having acquired the requisite eligibility criteria for regularization of her service, her case was rightly excluded from the purview of such regularization while the respondent authorities had issued the order, dated 10.05.1994, regularizing the services of the eligible Extra Writers. 15. It is seen that the petitioner, herein, has made a claim for similar benefit as was extended to the other Extra Writers who were regularized in their services vide order, dated 10.05.1994. However, the petitioner, herein, had approached this Court only on 19.12.2018, by way of instituting the present proceeding, praying for the reliefs, as noticed-above. One of the reliefs is for regularizing the service of the petitioner as Extra Writer with retrospective effect i.e. 01.08.1992. However, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das(supra), had clearly mandated that the Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge workers, casual workers and/or similarly placed workers, shall not be entitled for regularization of their services with consequential benefits such as pension, etc.. The Division Bench of this Court by noticing the concession made by the State Government authorities to not terminate the Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years(not in sanctioned post) till normal retirement except on disciplinary ground, or, on ground of criminal offences; had proceeded to direct the respondent authorities to implement the decision as arrived without further delay and also to pay the minimum of the pay scale of equivalent post in the regular establishment to the Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge workers and similarly placed employees working since last more than 10 years(not in sanctioned post) w.e.f. 01.08.2017, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 . 16. The petitioner, herein, as on 01.08.2017, had rendered more than 10 years of continuous service as an Extra Writer and accordingly, she is entitled to be extended with the benefits flowing from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das (supra). 17. The respondent authorities have contended in the present proceeding that the petitioner, herein, is no longer in her service at least w.e.f. July, 2019. The said position has not been disputed by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. 17. The respondent authorities have contended in the present proceeding that the petitioner, herein, is no longer in her service at least w.e.f. July, 2019. The said position has not been disputed by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances as obtaining in the matter, while the prayer of the petitioner for having her service regularized with retrospective effect i.e. 01.08.1992, being not entertained and the same being rejected; the claim of the petitioner for being extended with the benefits flowing from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as rendered in the case of Upen Das(supra) w.e.f. 01.08.2017, would merit consideration. 19. Accordingly, this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, to cause an inquiry to ascertain the period of service rendered by the petitioner as an Extra Writer on daily wage basis. After determining the period of service so rendered by the petitioner, herein; she shall be extended with the minimum scale of pay attached to the post of Lower Division Assistant and/or any other post equivalent to the post of Extra Writer along with the other benefits so flowing to her in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upen Das(supra), with effect from 01.08.2017. 20. It is reiterated that the said benefit as required to be extended to the petitioner, will be so extendable to the petitioner, herein, till the period she had actually rendered her service in the establishment with effect from 01.08.2017. 21. The arrears of salary now working-out in respect of the petitioner, herein, in terms of the directions passed by this Court hereinabove; shall be so computed and released by the respondent authorities within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 22. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.