JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The petitioner was engaged as a Mate by the opp. party No. 2-Corporation on 17-1-1982 on the wage of Rs. 7.50 per day at Kansbahal Earth Dam Project in the district of Siindargarh. He was then transferred to serve in the Burla Power House Project in Sambalpur district as a Time Keeper and joined thereon 12-6-1983 on daily wage of Rs. 12/- per day where he continued. He was then appointed as a Mate in the same Burla Power House Project on 1-8-1984 on daily wage of Rs. 12/-, was engaged continuously and was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 14.50 per day from 1-4-1986 to 31-3- 1988, Rs. 16/- per day from 1-4-1988 till 30-6-1990 on which date his wages become Rs. 30/- per day. This petition has been filed on 1 -2-1991 claiming the relief of payment of same scale of pay as is drawn by the regular employees of his rank and for regularisation of his service During the pendency of the case before this Court the petitioner having been retrenched from service on 23-6-1991, the fact Was pleaded by amendment which was allowed on 30-7-1991. The petitioner was re-engaged on 14-9-1991 from which date he has been continuing as a Mate in the C. W, Ontake Channel Project at Bandharpalli,in the district 2. In spite of notice, no counter affidavit has been filed It is submitted by the learned counsel for opp. party No. 2 Corporation that the copy of the writ petition incorporating the amendment was received incomplete for which no counter affidavit has been filed. We are not inclined to entertain such plea since the amendment was allowed on 30-7-1991and the of the amended petition was received on 6-4-1992. No complaint had been made till date of incomplete copy of the petition having been received and the submission is raised by the learned counsel for opp. party No. 2 only during the hearing of the case We would as such proceed on the footing that no counter affidavit has been filed. 3. The question of payment to the N. M. R. staff in the same scale as is paid to the regular emplpyees of the opp. party No 2 Corporation and the question of their regularisation in service was considered by this Court in OJC No. 1876 of 1985 (Jayakrushna Mishra and Ors. 3. The question of payment to the N. M. R. staff in the same scale as is paid to the regular emplpyees of the opp. party No 2 Corporation and the question of their regularisation in service was considered by this Court in OJC No. 1876 of 1985 (Jayakrushna Mishra and Ors. v. M. D. O. C. C. Ltd. and Anr.) decided 14-7-1987 where in the claim for salary as is received by the counterparts of the N. M. R. ataff appointed on regulgr basjs upheld and as regards regularisation in service the observations made by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh and Another Vs. Engineer-in-chief, C.P.W.D. and Others, was relied upon to that the State as model employer should not continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which are in existence for over twelve years, and decided that continuance of persons as N.M.R. empoyees for the last five years would suggest that there is a is a ample work in the corporation to create such posts on regular basis. The Court expressed that the corporation would take appropriate action to regu- larise the services of the employees who were in continuous employment for more than live years. Such claim again came to be considered in OJCs. 766 to 768 of 1988 and 1203-1204 of 1988 decided on November 6, 1991 where the Court re-affirmed the decision in OJC No. 1876/85 (supra) that the petitioners in those cases would be paid salary and allowances as are paid to their counterparts in the regular establish- ment with effect from the dates of their employment and that they would also be entitled to revised scales of pay, if any, available to their counterparts. As regards regularisation of service, the Corporation was directed to take appropriate steps in respect of the employees who were in continuous service for more than five year's by then. The decision of this Court in that case was brought before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2281, 2285, 2236, 2287, 2282, 2283-84 and 2289/92 (M. D. OCC and Ors. v. Shyam Sundar Jena and Ors.). The judgment in which case is reported is Managing Director, Orissa Construction Corpn. and Others Vs. Shyam Sundar Jena and Others . The decision of this Court in that case was brought before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2281, 2285, 2236, 2287, 2282, 2283-84 and 2289/92 (M. D. OCC and Ors. v. Shyam Sundar Jena and Ors.). The judgment in which case is reported is Managing Director, Orissa Construction Corpn. and Others Vs. Shyam Sundar Jena and Others . The Apex Court also affirmed the decision of this Court only explaining that regular establishment in the expression 'counterparts in regular establishment' would mean the project where the workman was working. As regards regularisation of services, it was directed that those workmen who had put in five years of service would continue in the service of the management and their services shall not be dispensed with and that further the management would regularise them as and when regular vacancies were available. Further, direction was given that the workman might be diputed to work in any of the projects under the control of the management where vacancies . were available and the respondent workman who had served the management for more than five years and whose services in the meanwhile had been terminated would be taken back in service with continuity of service. 4. In view of such decisions and the facts of the case, the petitioner becomes entitled to both the reliefs of payment of salary as is received by his counterparts in the regular establishment as has been fixed by the apex Court and his regular absorption in service when vacancy arises with the added protection that his service shall not be dispensed with until his regular absorption is made though ha may be deputed to work under any of the projects of the corporation. We would accordingly direct that such reliefs be granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party corporation though has not filed any counter affidavit yet submits that in the project where the petitioner was working as a Mate there is no regular post of Mate available and as such there cannot be any concept of 'counterpart in the regular establishment' so far as the petitioner is concerned. The other submission made is of there having been a break in the petitioner's service from 23-6-1991 to 14-9-1991. The other submission made is of there having been a break in the petitioner's service from 23-6-1991 to 14-9-1991. Though the first part of the submission relates to a fact, yet since such a question has been raised and non-adjudication of the same may create confusion and complications in future, we dispose of the case with the direction that in the event no counterpart post is available in the regular establishment as explained by the Supreme Court, the opposite parties are to find out work equivalence of the petitioner to any of the posts existing in the regular establishment and pay him according to the scale of pay available to such post from the date of his employment. The determination be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court and the arrears be paid to him within two months thereafter. 6. So far as the second submission regarding break in service is concerned, we are of the view that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. The Corporation was entitled to retrench the petitioner from his service and the retrenchment was illegal. The petitioner hence is entitled to be treated as continuing in service throughout and entitled to the arrears which is to be paid within the same time. 7. The writ petition is allowed. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 500/-. S.K. Mohanty, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed