SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) ARUN Kumar mishra, the writ petitioner, has prayed for the following reliefs :". . . . . . TO admit the writ application, issue rule nisi, in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant shall not be regularised in monthly cadre w. e. f the date of his initial appointment, i. e. , 13. 3. 1986 with all cosequential service benefits from that date and in the event the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said rule be made absolute; and may further be pleased to pass any other order/orders or direction/directions as deem fit and proper and for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray" ( 2 ) THE petitioner, in fact, is aggrieved by the inaction of the opp. parties, namely, the orissa Mining Corporation and its officials in not regularising the service in the proper cadre although the petitioner has completed seven years of continuous temporary service as a class III employee in different capacities till the writ petition was presented on 14. 10. 1993. ( 3 ) IT is placed on record that the petitioner who had been working under the Corporation was offered a temporary weekly post of Didiy assistant by order of the General Manager under Memo, dated 31. 1. 1987. The petitioner had to accept the same under duress without having any alternative. Even during the aforesaid temporary appointment he discharged his duties satisfactorily and there was no adverse remark whatsoever against him at any point of time. The petitioner was transferred from kalarangi to Central Township. Chirgunia to work there as an Office Assistant for a period of six months. The petitioner joined his new assignment as Office Assistant in Central Township, chirgunia. The petitioner. However, attended the interview for the post of Junior assistant after receiving a call letter dated 30. 10. 1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his regular working he is still in a precarious condition and his services haw not yet been regularised. ( 4 ) THE writ petition is opposed by the contesting opp. parties by filing a counter affidavit. 10. 1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his regular working he is still in a precarious condition and his services haw not yet been regularised. ( 4 ) THE writ petition is opposed by the contesting opp. parties by filing a counter affidavit. It is stated that the regular scale of pay of the Weekly/daily rated monthly paid (D. R. M. P) employees of the Corporation are being considered on the basis of service expe rience of the concerned employees and as per norms fixed by the Board of Directors of o. M. C. Limited. The Weekly/d,r. M,p, employees who have completed five years of service in the organisation of the opp party-Corporation with designation or against the designated posts as on 31,12. 1990. have been considered for regularisation as per the approval of the Board of Directors of the O. M. C. Ltd. As per the resolution of the Board of Directors, the petitioner was not eligible for regularisation. He had not completed five years of service as on 31. 12. 1990 to be eligible to get regular scale of pay. The services of Weekly/ d. R. M. P. employees are subject to observance of Rules. Regulations and Procedures. The case of the petitioner will be considered in the future along with others when he will be eligible for regularisatioh. A committee consisting of senior executives has been constituted to examine and finalise rationalisation of the non-permanent employees as well as for considering extension of service benefits in their favour. The report of the said committee is awaited. On receipt of the report/recommendation of the committee the same will be put up before the Board of Directors for taking a final decision in the matter. The petitioner is being paid wages from the date of his joining till date as provided under the Minimum wages Act, 1948 revised by the Central Government from time to time. All other allegations are denied. Regarding the interview in which the petitioner had appeared, the result is awaited. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opp. parties at length. The writ petition was filed on 14. 10. 1993 and the counter affidavit was filed on 27. 6. 1994. It appears that the petitioner has been found to be working in continuity. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opp. parties at length. The writ petition was filed on 14. 10. 1993 and the counter affidavit was filed on 27. 6. 1994. It appears that the petitioner has been found to be working in continuity. Definitely he has worked much more than five years There is no bar and/or impediment for regularising the service of the petitioner as he is found to be working against the sanctioned post which is found to be perennial in nature. The petitioner was not appointed by back-door method, nor his initial appointment was illegal. We find, at present, the writ petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity and his service should he regularised if not done already. Regarding the earlier interview, we are not inclined to interfere since the petitioner was not found to be suitable as contended. ( 6 ) WE thus allow the writ petition and direct that if the petitioner's services have not been regularised, the same will be regularised against a proper sanctioned post within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. A proper writ be issued accordingly. No order as to costs. C. R. Pal, J.-I agree. Petition allowed. .