“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had passed an order, on 08.04.2010, which reads, inter alia, thus: Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, it is hereby made clear that unless otherwise directed by this Court, there shall be no bar, on the part of the State respondents, to engage the present petitioners in the field work of the Department along with similarly situated other persons, if such engagement is legally made. It is further clarified that the engagement, as has been permitted by this Court, by its order, dated 08.04.2010, shall not be in a manner, which may co me into conflict with the observations made, and the directions given, by a Full Bench of this Court, in Jitendra Kalita & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2006) 2 GLT 654 (FB). As regards the claim of the petitioners that they have not been paid their dues for the period, for which they had worked, it needs to be pointed out that the contention of the petitioners, that they had worked, is disputed by the respondents. For such a disputed question of fact, a proceeding of present nature, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not the appropriate proceeding inasmuch as determination of such a question would require making of roving enquiry and adducing of evidence by the parties concerned. In such circumstances, as far as the petitioners’ claim for non-payment of their dues are concerned, the petitioners shall have to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law for remedy of their grievances. If any proceedings is instituted by the petitioners claiming payment of their alleged dues, the observations, made and/or the findings recorded by the respondents, in their enquiry report, on 19.11.2008 (Annexure P-2 3 to the writ petition), shall not be binding on the petitioners, though the same may be relevant for the respondents in order to sustain their findings in the matter.”