JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. Petitioner claiming to be continuing as a N.M.R. employee under the S.D.O., Kulunga involving the Executive Engineer, Rajgangpur Electrical Division filed the writ petition seeking direction for considering his case for regularization and equal pay for equal work. 2. Short fact involved in the case at hand is that the petitioner was appointed initially as a casual labourer on 1.10.1986, and subsequently enrolled as an N.M.R. in the year 1988 and claimed to be working as such till date of filing of the writ petition. It is claimed that the Department prepared two separate lists of casual labourer on 1.7.1987 and the other on 1.4.1988 respectively enrolling the casual labourer as N.M.Rs. those who were counting as casual labourer along with the petitioner. It is alleged that in spite of preparation of two separate lists of N.M.Rs., the Executive Engineer only regularized the N.M.Rs. enrolled as on 1.7.1987 and did not regularise the petitioner. It is claimed that the petitioner has an unblemished career and looking to the provision to regularise the N.M.Rs., whosoever has completed 400 days, were required to be regularised. It is further alleged that even though petitioner was placed at serial no.17 in the list initially but entering into a correction, his position in the list has been subsequently altered and shown at the bottom of the list at 47 finds place at pages 11 & 12 of the writ petition respectively. Petitioner claimed that there is sufficient work with the opposite parties and there was no occasion for not regularizing the petitioner. Further by the deliberate change in the serial number of the petitioner in spite of his working for more than 400 days by the particular date, his case has been deliberately discriminated. It is further alleged that in the meantime, vide Annexure-4, there is again listing of names of persons working as N.M.R. who have completed more than 400 days as on 1.10.1991. In the process, though the authority regularised a number of candidates similar to that of the petitioner completed 400 days as on 1.10.91 but the petitioner has been once again discriminated. Petitioner claiming to have been discriminated in the matter of regularisation by filing the writ petition claimed for a direction for considering his case for regularization and also for payment equal pay for equal work. 3. Petitioner claiming to have been discriminated in the matter of regularisation by filing the writ petition claimed for a direction for considering his case for regularization and also for payment equal pay for equal work. 3. Sri R.N. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties referring to their counter submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he was working as an N.M.R. with effect from 1.10.1986 was false. He was rather working under a gang leader from 1.10.1986 to 31.3.1988. By detailing the working of the petitioner as N.M.R. on different spells, Sri Acharya, learned counsel for the O.Ps. claimed that not only the petitioner did not complete 400 days as on the cut off date but was not even in service of the O.Ps. Sri Acharya, learned counsel for the O.Ps. claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to claim for regularization and equal pay. In paragraph-8 of the counter, the opposite parties objected the claim of the petitioner on the premises that though the petitioner had completed 400 days as on 1.10.1991 but his case could not be considered for regularization only on the premises that he was not on the roll of the opposite parties when the particular batch was considered for regulation, Sri Acharya thus seriously objected the claim of the petitioner on both count. 4. It appears that the petitioner answering the opponent’s claim that he is not in the roll of the opposite parties in employment filing a rejoinder claimed that he was in employment as on date of filing of the writ petition. 5. During course of argument, Sri Dash made a fair statement that the petitioner was disengaged in spite of an interim protection granted by this Court and as such claimed that non-engagement of the petitioner at a subsequent stage is only an attempt to keep the petitioner away from the grant of relief. Opposite parties in response to the affidavit by the petitioner filed a further affidavit where they have made a categoric statement that petitioner’s name initially though found place at serial no.17 of the list but as it was an inadvertent one, on verification of actual facts, his position has been shifted to 47. It is thus claimed that there was no defect in the correction of the list. It is thus claimed that there was no defect in the correction of the list. Opposite parties reiterating the stand taken earlier submitted that though the petitioner completed 400 days of work by 1.10.91 but he could not be regularised for his not continuing with the employer by the time persons similarly situated were considered for regularization by the opposite parties. 6. Considering the pleadings in the writ petition, the counter, the affidavit of the petitioner, the additional affidavit of the opposite parties and the rejoinder by the petitioner as well, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the petitioner was already included in the list of N.M.R. completed 400 days as on 1.1.87 but finding inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list of persons completed 400 days as illegal and not based on actual facts, petitioner’s name was subsequently included in the subsequent list prepared as on 1.10.91. It is observed here that petitioner did not challenge inclusion of his name once again in the list prepared taking into consideration of completion of 400 days as on 1.10.91. It is also found that the services of the petitioner could not be regularised on account of the fact that he was not in the roll when the N.M.R. batch prepared in 1991 was taken up for consideration. This Court thus observes that in spite of petitioner coming to know that he is not in roll of the employer at a particular point of time, the petitioner has not taken any step for amendment of the writ petition. As the petitioner was not on the roll of employer, this Court finds, no direction for regularization of the petitioner can be issued at this stage. This Court only makes an observation that in the event the petitioner is not in employment and has not attended the age of superannuation, it is open to him to submit a representation for the consideration of the O.Ps. for any temporary engagement. 7. The writ petition thus stands dismissed for having no merit but with the observation made herein above.