CWP No.1487 of 2002 5.5.2008 Present: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioners. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, counsel for the respondent. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 16th July, 2002 passed in O.A.No. 350 of 1999. The respondent filed the original application before the learned Tribunal claiming that though he had been appointed as Daily Wage Beldar by the respondent on 15.7.1996 but from 15.7.1998 onwards he has been performing the duties of a driver. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that he may be paid wages of daily rated Driver w.e.f. 15.7.1998 with all consequential benefits. The learned Tribunal after going through the records came to a finding of fact on the basis of the Log-Books that the petitioner had in fact worked and discharged the duties of a driver. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered within exercise of our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal after holding that the petitioner had functioned and worked as driver from 15.7.1998 issued the following directions:- “In the light of above finding the present original application is allowed with the directions to the respondents to pay wages and allowances to CWP No.1487 of 2002 applicant as are admissible to the driver on daily wage basis within one month from this order. It is also directed that since the applicant has been working as driver with the respondents he be continued to discharge the same duties and be regularized as such in due course of time as per the rules governing the matter if otherwise eligible and if the post is there.” No fault can be found with these directions. Once it was found that the petitioner was working as a driver, it was but natural that he should be granted the same wages as paid to daily wage driver. The only other direction, which has been given is that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to discharge the duties of driver and his case for regularisation shall be considered in due course as per the Rules governing the matter and if the post is available. Admittedly, the department has two vehicles and from 1998 till the petition was disposed of in the year 2002 the petitioner had been functioning as a driver. Therefore, it was right on the part of the learned Tribunal to permit the petitioner to continue to function as driver. His case for regularisation has to be considered only in accordance with the Rules and regulations framed by the Government as and when post is available. CWP No.1487 of 2002 We find no error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. May 5, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. ™