by an Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2012, the Finance Department of the State had taken a decision that there shall be no further regularization of services of Muster Roll/Work Charged and Casual Workers or similarly placed workers even if such workers were engaged prior to 01.04.1993. Accordingly, it is submitted that notwithstanding that the said Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2012 was quashed by this Court in MC 597/2012, by virtue of the decision rendered in the case of Upen Das (supra) wherein this Court had held that Muster Roll Workers, Work Charged and Casual Workers were not entitled for regularization or for pension, etc., the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits or for consideration of regularization of her husband with retrospective effect. It is also submitted that the direction flowing from paragraph 22 of the judgment rendered in the case of Upen Das (supra) would not be available to the petitioner because the petitioner had already died on 14.04.2012 and therefore, there is no way that the benefits of Health and Accidental Insurance can be extended to the husband of the petitioner. It is also submitted that unless the service of the husband of the petitioner was regularized and he had attained the qualifying period of service, the petitioner would not be entitled to pensionary benefits including family pension in respect of her deceased husband. Accordingly, it is submitted that owing to non-regularization of service of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled to other benefits, gratuity, GPF, etc.
