JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The petitioner who has been working as Branch Manager under Orissa State Handloom Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar (for short 'Corporation') in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a direction to the Managing Director and the General Manager of the Corporation to regularise his service in the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the scale of pay admissible to such post. 2. Petitioner's case as borne out from the pleadings may briefly be stated thus: In order to fill up 12 vacancies in the post Senior Assistant (Accounts) the Managing Director of the Corporation notified the vacancies to the State Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar, on January 6, 1987 requesting to sponsor the names of the candidates having educational qualification of Master degree in Commerce. Pursuant thereto names of the petitioner and others were sponsored by the employment exchange and thereupon interview/test was conducted. The petitioner having come out successful in the interview was appointed as Sales Assistant-cum-Branch Manager, ODIS1, Paralakhemundi Branch under the Corporation on probation for a period of one year. He was given to understand that on completion of the probation period he would be absorbed on regular basis as a Senior Assistant (Accounts). Since the date of joining he has been discharging the functions of Senior Sales Assistant/ Manager which is equal to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts), on consolidated pay Rs. 900/- till date. He would urge that the Corporation in the meantime has regularised the services of similarly situated persons as Senior Assistant (Accounts) overlooking the case of the petitioner. He has cited the example of one Mukunda Charan Sahoo and Bhramarbar Biswal. It is alleged, he has been discriminated by the Corporation without any reason whatsoever which offends the equality clause as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Being highly qualified he accepted the job under the Corporation on a paltry sum of Rs. 900/- per month with a hope that his services would he regularised and he would get the pay as admissible to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). He waited for 7 years and in the meantime he has crossed the age limit to enter into Government service. 900/- per month with a hope that his services would he regularised and he would get the pay as admissible to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts). He waited for 7 years and in the meantime he has crossed the age limit to enter into Government service. Having lost all hopes to get justice at the hands of his employer, he has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present writ petition claiming the relief as aforesaid. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed their return contending, inter alia, that the petitioner though was a candidate in the interview held for the posts of Senior Assistant (Accounts), he did not qualify. However, since the Corporation required some Sales Assistant, he was temporarily appointed against such post on consolidated pay of Rs. 900/- per month and was posted in the sales branch of ODISI at Berhampur. Pursuant to such appointment he joined the said post on the terms and conditions embodied in the appointment letter. It is asserted that post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) and Sales Assistant are distinct and separate and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for absorption as Senior Assistant (Accounts) on regular basis. The further contention of opposite parties 1 and 2 is that the services of the employees appointed on consolidated salary are being regularised in a phased manner depending upon the improvement of the financial condition of the Corporation and at present there are 66 such employees. So far as the Sales Assistants are concerned, no one has yet been regularised. The allegation of the petitioner that one M.C. Sahoo, a sales Assistant who was junior to him has been absorbed on regular basis, is not true and correct. In fact he was senior to the petitioner, his date of joining being April 20, 1987, whereas the petitioner joined on September 16, 1987. Moreover, the petitioner during his incumbency as Branch Manager, Rayagade has made shortages both in cash and stock to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- and this is sufficient enough to indicate that he lacks efficiency to serve in the Corporation. In fine, it is urged that the petitioner cannot be regularised in the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) as prayed for by him. 4. Refuting the assertion made in the counter, the petitioner has riled a rejoinder. 20,000/- and this is sufficient enough to indicate that he lacks efficiency to serve in the Corporation. In fine, it is urged that the petitioner cannot be regularised in the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) as prayed for by him. 4. Refuting the assertion made in the counter, the petitioner has riled a rejoinder. The averments made therein are almost repetition of the facts stated in the writ petition. As regards the allegation of short-fall, as alleged by the opposite parties, he stoutly denied the same. It is stated that till now he has not been charge-sheeted nor even any proceeding has been initiated against him. 5. On the above factual back drop the questions for consideration are whether petitioner's prayer for regularisation of his service can be allowed and if so against which post, that is, whether in the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) or in the post of Branch Manager/Sales Assistant. 6. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and have perused the relevant documents relied upon by them. It is the admitted case of the parties that in order to fill up 12 posts of Senior Assistant (Accounts) by the candidates having educational qualification of Master degree in Commerce, interview was held in 1987 and the petitioner was one of the candidates who appeared in the said interview. Petitioner asserts that he was selected in the said interview, whereas according to the Corporation he was not. Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as the Sales Assistant-cum-Branch Manager, ODISI, Paralakhemundi, on September 15, 1997 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 900/- per month and since then he has been continuing in such post (sic)7 till date and though in the meantime more than a decade has elapsed, there has been no increase in his salary. From the designation of the post and the nature of duties the petitioner has been performing for all these long years it appears to us that the post of Sales Assistant/Branch Manager is a permanent post. The Corporation in paragraph 9 of its counter has admitted that the post of Sales Assistant against which the petitioner was appointed belongs to a separate cadre. However, pleadings of both panics are silent as to what pay scale the said post carries. The Corporation in paragraph 9 of its counter has admitted that the post of Sales Assistant against which the petitioner was appointed belongs to a separate cadre. However, pleadings of both panics are silent as to what pay scale the said post carries. Petitioner asserts that the posts of Senior Sales Assistant and Senior Assistant (Accounts) are equivalent posts and a similarly situated employee, namely, Bharamarbar Biswal who was initially appointed as Sales Assistant has been absorbed as a Senior Assistant (Accounts). It is pertinent to mention here that Bharamarbar Biswal along with 17 others approached this Court in O. J. C. No. 2934 of 1990 seeking regularisation of their service as Senior Assistant (Accounts). A scrutiny of the records in the said case would reveal that Shri Biswal though was initially appointed as Sales Assistant with a consolidated salary of Rs. 900/-, but one year thereafter he was redesignated as Accounts Assistant (Audit) on consolidated pay of Rs. 1000/ - per month. The Division Bench considering the relevant materials came to hold that the petitioners though were appointed as Accounts Assistant (Audit) or Senior Assistant (Accounts) but they were put in same scale and their services were being utilised in the Accounts Department. Ultimately, the Court accepted the contentions of the petitioners in the said case and disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. In view of the above, the petitioner's case being not similar to that of Bharamarbar Biswal, his grievance that he has been treated differently cannot be accepted. In course of argument it was contended by Shri Ray, learned counsel for Corporation that there is acute financial problem in the Corporation due to excess of staff. Moreover, there is a cumulative net loss of Rs. 8.70 crores by the end of 1995-96 for which a decision has been taken to close down the Corporation as borne out from the minutes of the meeting held between the Government and the President of Orissa Nigam Karmachari Mahasangha. In the premises, contended Shri Ray, petitioner's prayer for regularisation does not deserve any consideration. The aforesaid contention does not persuade us to deny the relief to which the petitioner is entitled. It may be noted that the petitioner is a highly qualified person having obtained Master Degree in Commerce. In the premises, contended Shri Ray, petitioner's prayer for regularisation does not deserve any consideration. The aforesaid contention does not persuade us to deny the relief to which the petitioner is entitled. It may be noted that the petitioner is a highly qualified person having obtained Master Degree in Commerce. Since there is acute unemployment problem in the State, he had no other option but to accept the job of Sales Assistant/Branch Manager on a paltry sum of Rs. 900/- as consolidated pay per month. He could not have bargained with the Corporation for regular pay. He is after all a low paid employee. Financial problem of the Corporation, if any, would not stand as a bar to deny him the relief. By not regularising his service the Corporation cannot over-come the financial problem. State and state owned Corporations are after all model employers. It is not expected of them to exploit labour and avail the services of the employees without giving them service benefits which they are entitled to under law. Being a highly qualified person, the petitioner agreed to the salary of Rs. 30/- per day (Rs. 900/- as consolidated pay per month) in exchange of the service rendered by him to the Corporation and this was perhaps because he had a hope that his employer would take a sympathetic view and regularise his service. But when this was denied to him, he had no other alternative, but to rush to this Court for justice. In the meantime he has crossed the age limit and doors are permanently closed for him for public employment. Keeping all these aspects in view, we are of the opinion that he deserves to be regularised in the post held by him. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the authorities of Corporation to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Sales Assistant/Branch Manager from the date,of this order with usual pay and allowances as admissible to such post, within three months from the date of communication of the writ. No Costs. Final Result : Allowed