WP(C) 6127/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. . This writ petition has been filed claiming absorption of the petitioner in any Grade-IV post. The petitioner was appointed as Bunglow Peon at a consolidated monthly pay of Rs.900/- Such appointment was for a period of 6 (six) months and stated to be on the basis of the Government Circular No.FEB.108/83/5 dated 16. 12.1983 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) After the aforesaid initial appointment of the petitioner limiting the same for a period of 6 (six) months, he was allowed to continue in service until further order by order dated 10.2.1998 (Annexurer-5 to the writ petition). The monthly salary of the petitioner was also enhanced from time to time. Placing reliance on Annexure-8 office memorandum dated 16.12.1983, the petitione r seeks a direction to the respondents to absorb him against any Grade-IV vacan t post and to pay monthly salary in the time scale of pay. As per the said offi ce memorandum, a Bunglow Peon, who has completed more than 5 (five) years of con tinuous service may be considered for absorption in the regular cadre of Grade-I V of the concerned office. However, it also provides that the Bunglow Peon sho uld be born outside the regular cadre of Peon. It also provides that when the officer, with whom a Bunglow Peon is attached, vacates the office, the services of the Bunglow Peon shall stand terminated. However, Mr. Mahanta, learned counse l for the petitioner emphasized on the requirement to consider the case of the Bubnglow Peon, who has rendered more than 5 (five) years of service. He submits that since the petitioner has completed more than 5 (five) years of service and still in service, his case is required to be considered in terms of the office memorandum dated 16.12.1983. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing my attention to the doc uments annexed to Misc. Case No.1928/2008, submits that the case of the petiti oner was in fact, considered and the proposal for his absorption is presently w ith the Finance Department. In this connection, he has referred to Annexure-’A’, ’B’ and ’C’ documents annexed to Misc. Case No.1928/2008, by which the proposal for his absorption against Grade-IV post was made. Ms Chakraborty, learned State counsel, on the other hand, referring to the Full Bench decision reported in 2006 (2) GLT 654 (Jiten Kalita v. State of Assam & Or s), submits that the petitioner cannot claim regularization as a matter of cours e. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition stands disposed of pr oviding that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in accord ance with law. Writ petition stands disposed of.