Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. All these writ petitions raising identical issues of fact and law, being inter-related, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The core issue involved in this batch of writ petitions is the claim of work charge employees, muster roll workers and similar category of employees engaged prior to 01.04.1993 for regularisation of their service under the Government of Assam. Related grievance, which can also be said to be an offshoot of the core issue, is the claim of such categories of employees and workers or their family members for pension or family pension as the case may be, after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of death, by creating supernumerary post personal to the incumbent and regularising his service for one day. The grievance has crystallized in the form of challenge to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 16.06.2012 issued by the Finance (EC-II) Department, Government of Assam, which has ruled out any further regularisation on both counts.

Back Ground Facts.

2. The present batch of writ petitions have their genesis in the earlier rounds of litigation which culminated in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jitendra Kalita & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2006 (2) GLT 654. State of Assam is being confronted by the problem of a large number of work charge employees, muster roll workers and similar category of employees seeking regularisation which has assumed endemic proportion despite what was thought to be the conclusive intervention of this Court through the Full Bench in Jitendra Kalita. Of course, this problem is not confined or peculiar to the State of Assam only. It has a pan Indian complexion and had assumed alarming proportion so much so that a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to step in. It is the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Yet the problem refuses to fade away and continues to confront the Court. This has resulted in the present round of litigation which is sought to be answered through the instant judgment.

3. The Full Bench in Jitendra Kalita had very lucidly and elaborately set out the facts. Therefore, for better appreciation, the facts as narrated in Jitendra Kalita are liberally quoted and referred to in the instant judgment. Relevant portion of Jitendra Kalita dealing with the genesis of the problem and the attempts made by the State for resolution of the problem, reads as under:--

2........................................

In the several engineering and works related departments of the State, a muster roll of workers is maintained in addition to the employees working in the regular cadre. Such workers are known as Muster Roll Workers. Also, in such engineering and works related departments of the State there is another category of workers whose tenure of service and pay and allowances are charged to a particular on going work. Such employees are commonly known as work charged employees. Though muster roll and work charged establishments are normally to be found in the works related departments, which are basically the engineering departments of the State, the practice of engaging such workers has virtually come to be followed in all departments of the State. In addition to the above two categories, each department of the State employs a large number of casual workers including fixed pay and daily rated workers. The extent of such employment in the State of Assam, which is outside the mainstream of employment, it must be noticed, is considerable.

3. In the year 1983, and to be precise, on 23.09.1983, a Cabinet decision was taken to the effect that all muster roll labourers working in all departments of the State, who have completed 15 years of service or more may be regularized as Grade IV employees. What happened thereafter and how the decision of the Cabinet was implemented, if at all, is not very clear save and except that in a communication dated 15.03.19