JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner in this writ petition, inter alia, challenges the action of the opposite parties in not giving him appointment as Office Assistant/Clerk and not giving him the salary and other financial benefits as applicable to such post even though he has been performing the work of the Office Assistant/Clerk from the date of his joining the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Work Sarkar on daily wage basis on 4.5.1981 @ Rs. 10/- per day but he was asked to perform the duties of Office Assistant/Clerk and during his incumbency he was posted in finance branch with duties of maintenance of stocks, accounts and cash accounts, to act as cashier, to remain in-charge of cash, allotted the duties for compliance of accounts etc. He was directed to attend audit compliance, for store operation and maintenance of Industrial Estate, Jagatpur (New) and to take over charge from Junior Assistant. Ultimately, he was promoted to the rank of Supervisor with effect from 21.6.2006 by up-gradation and was allowed to continue with the assignment as given before. He was attached to the I.D. Section of Cuttack Division since 23.8.2006 and on 7.9.2006 he was allowed to deal with the I.D. related matters of seven Industrial Estates. On 16.10.2007 he ws directed to deal with the matters relating to five Industrial Estates in supersession of all the previous orders. On 22.7.1988, 17.8.1990 and 16.4.1991, the Petitioner was issued with certificates/recommendations of satisfactory performance of clerical and accounts duties. It is further stated that a similarly situated person, i.e., Nityananda Das, Work Sarkar and junior to the Petitioner was regularized as a Clerk by virtue of the judgment passed in OJC No. 1249 of 1991. Thereafter On 5.12.1992 the Petitioner was directed to work under the Assistant Engineer, IDCO, Cuttack along with Nityananda Das, Petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition. 3. On 7.12.1992 the Petitioner filed a representation to consider his case and adjust him in the pest, the work of which he was performing since the date of his joining in the service. The Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing OJC No. 6438 of 1993, which was withdrawn giving liberty to him to pursue his representation. 3. On 7.12.1992 the Petitioner filed a representation to consider his case and adjust him in the pest, the work of which he was performing since the date of his joining in the service. The Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing OJC No. 6438 of 1993, which was withdrawn giving liberty to him to pursue his representation. The representation appears to have been rejected on 25.5.1995 and according to the Petitioner the said order of rejection was not communicated to him and only known when the counter affidavit to this writ petition as filed. When the matter stood thus, on 17.11.2007 the General Manger (P&A) of the Corporation (O.P. No. 4) issued a letter to the Petitioner requiring his willingness to work as Clerk/Assistant on the ground that he is an idle/semi-idle employee. The Petitioner submitted his representation with specific reference to the pendency of the present writ petition. During pendency of the representation, the Divisional Head, IDCO, Cuttack Division issued and office order dated 19.12.2007 withdrawing all works entrusted, in pursuance of an order dated 16.10.2007 by which the Petitioner was allowed to deal with the matters relating to five Industrial Estates and the Petitioner alleges that this has been done to frustrate his claim. This Court by its order dated 4.1.2008 directed the officer issuing the said order to give an explanation as to why this shall not be construed as an interference in the pending judicial proceeding and on 10.1.2008 an affidavit was filed stating that the order dated 19.12.2007 has been withdrawn. 4. Now, the case of the Petitioner is that in the case of Nityananda Das the benefit of regularizing him and absorbing him in the post of Clerk was granted by virtue of compliance of the judgment of this Court, but the opposite parties are reluctant to extend such benefit to the Petitioner without any valid reason. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties taking a specific stand that after Nityananda Das case was decided by this Court in Anr. case filed by one N.P. Sahoo (OJC No. 3377 of 1993) such a claim was rejected while disposing of the said writ petition and rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, this Court held that Nityananda Das case was and different facts and circumstances, which would have no bearing with the case of N.P. Sahoo. case filed by one N.P. Sahoo (OJC No. 3377 of 1993) such a claim was rejected while disposing of the said writ petition and rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, this Court held that Nityananda Das case was and different facts and circumstances, which would have no bearing with the case of N.P. Sahoo. Basing on the order in the case of N.P. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that the Petitioner cannot be equated with Nityananda Das and hence no benefits should be given to the Petitioner. Another stand was taken that the Petitioner was called for the interview for the post of Clerk in 1998, but he could not succeed in the said interview for which his absorption subsequently in the post of Clerk is uncalled for. These are the two major grounds on which the claim of the Petitioner has been attacked by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. So far as the application of N.P. Sahoo case is concerned, as is held by this Court that each case be dealt with on its own merit, the case of the present Petitioner shall also be dealt with on its own merit without being influenced by the decision of this Court as the facts of this case are totally different. 6. Admittedly, this is a case where the Petitioner has been appointed since 1981 and doing the work of a Clerk even though he is designated as Work Sarkar and subsequently promoted to the post of Worker Supervisor by way of upgradation. It is also an admitted fact that the Petitioner has reached the scale mostly similar to that of a Clerk. The Petitioner being a matriculate is also qualified to hold the post of a Clerk. Further, the letter dated 19.12.2007, which was subsequently withdrawn by the opposite parties after the intervention of this Court, confirms the fact that the Petitioner till date is continuing and is doing the work of a Clerk. That apart, the Petitioner on 17.11.2007 was issued with a letter from the Headquarters requiring his willingness to work as a Clerk/Assistant. Further, the letter dated 19.12.2007, which was subsequently withdrawn by the opposite parties after the intervention of this Court, confirms the fact that the Petitioner till date is continuing and is doing the work of a Clerk. That apart, the Petitioner on 17.11.2007 was issued with a letter from the Headquarters requiring his willingness to work as a Clerk/Assistant. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties at a point of time in the very recent past having offered the Petitioner for his willingness to work as a Clerk have attempted to turn around by withdrawing the duties of a Clerk, the reason of which is neither disclosed in the counter affidavit nor placed before us at the time of hearing. 7. The only ground taken is that the Petitioner was not selected in the interview. Fact remains that the Petitioner secured 3.5 marks in the interview whereas Nityananda Das got 2.4 in the same interview, who was regularized by virtue of order of this Court in OJC No. 1249 of 1991, as indicated above and the said judgment has been complied with. Be that as it may, Nityananda Das has been regularized by order dated 23.2.1993 with retrospective effect from 20.6.1989. In the meantime, 15 years have already passed since the order of such regularization issued to Nityananda Das. It is stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is going to retire in February, 2009. We are made to understand that there is a little financial implication, if the Petitioner is regularized in the post as he has claimed and as has been done in the case of Nityananda Das. There is no adverse remark so far as the performance of the Petitioner is concerned over a long period for which he has been allowed to perform the duties of clerical work. 8. In our considered opinion, when the Petitioner is performing the work of a Clerk and the opposite parties are for quit a long time utilizing his services for the purpose, there is no reason as to why his case for regularization for the post has been refused. Therefore, the Petitioner deserves and is entitled to be regularized in the post of a Clerk, the duties of which he is performing since 1981. 9. In the result, we allow the writ petition. Therefore, the Petitioner deserves and is entitled to be regularized in the post of a Clerk, the duties of which he is performing since 1981. 9. In the result, we allow the writ petition. The opposite parties are directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner as a Clerk from the date on which Nityananda Das was regularized, i.e., on 20.6.1989 and to fix his salary as that of a Clerk from that date and give all consequential benefits upon such regularization within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. A.K. Samantaray, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed