The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularization of an individual's services after their death is impermissible, as discussed in the Uma Devi and M.L. Kesari cases.

None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 4, Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Assam (respondent No.3).

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for regularization of the services of her husband Late Kailal Limsong, by creating a supernumerary post for one day and thereafter to finalize her family pension.

3. As projected in the Writ Petition, the petitioner’s husband Late Kailal Limsong was engaged as a Muster Roll Labour, in the establishment of the respondent No.5 on 01.08.1981. While working in such capacity, the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 07.04.2005, after having rendered services for 24 Years 8 Months 6 Days.

4. The petitioner in the Writ Petition has further contended that her husband being engaged as a Muster Roll Worker w.e.f. 01.08.1981, was covered by the policy adopted by the Government of Assam for regularization of the services of Muster Roll Workers who were so engaged prior to 01.04.1993. However, it is contended that before the process as initiated for regularizing the services of husband of the petitioner could be taken to its logical conclusion, he died while working as a Muster Roll Worker on 07.04.2005.

5. The petitioner in support of her claim has placed reliance amongst others, on the decision of this Court in the case of Ms. Anjali Thapa vs. State of Assam and others (WP(C) No.4107/2010), wherein this Court vide order dated 06.08.2010, under similar circumstances had disposed of the Writ Petition by requiring the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner’s husband, for one day, by creating a supernumerary post and thereafter to take further action in terms of the provisions in force for enabling the petitioner to receive family pension and other pensionary benefits. The petitioner has contended that she being similarly situated like the petitioner in WP(C) No.4107/2010, she is also entitled to similar benefits.

6. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents has contended that the order dated 06.08.2010, as passed by this Court in WP(C) No.4107/2010 was questioned by the State by way of instituting a Review Petition being Review Petition No.124/2012 (State of Assam vs. Ms. Anjali Thapa and others).

7. This Court vide order dated 14.03.2013, on consideration of the issues as raised in the Review Petition was pleased to allow the same by recalling the said order dated 06.08.2010. This Court had arrived at a conclusion that it was not permissible to regularize the appointment of the person concerned during his lifetime, it would be equally impermissible to regularize his services after the person concerned had died. This Court further held that the direction as issued vide the order dated 06.08.2010 in WP(C) No.4107/2010, for creation of the supernumerary post for the purpose of regularizing the services of the husband of the petitioner herein to be wholly illegal.

8. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 14.03.2013, passed by this Court in Review Petition No.124/2012 (State of Assam vs. Ms. Anjali Thapa and others) is quoted here-in-below for ready reference:

“13. Before dealing with the above aspects of the case, it needs to be borne in mind that an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated in the name of removing discrimination. The mere fact that an authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person, similarly situated, cannot be a ground for issuing a writ in favour of a petitioner on the plea of discrimination if the order, passed in favour of the other person, is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Noticing that the High Courts, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction, have been passing orders to