D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis as Baildar. Subsequently his designation was changed and he was asked to perform the job of Helper. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anand Kumar that the petitioner has since been posted as baildar once again by the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to him, this order is an order of reversion since the post of Helper is a post higher than that of the Baildar. Initially he contended that it is a promotional post when his attention was drawn to paragraph 7 of the writ petition, he admitted that the scale of Baildar and Helper is identical, viz. . Rs. 750-940 but the Helper enjoys certain privileges which are not available to the baildar. According to him, this additional privilege enjoyed by the Helper makes the post of helper higher than that of the Baildar and that is why he used the expression promotion. However, according to him the petitioner could not be reversed to the post of Baildar without giving an opportunity. On these grounds, he claims that the order of reversion should be quashed. ( 2 ) MR. N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was first engaged as daily wager and not against a post. Therefore, he cannot claim any right to the designation of Helper. He then contends that Helper and the Baildar are both class IV post with same pay scale. Therefore, there is no question of promotion. Grant of few privileges does not make the post Helper higher than that of Baildar. Therefore, the order that has been impugned in this writ petition is not an order of reversion. As such it does not inflict any civil consequence for which the petitioner could claim the opportunity of hearing. He then points out from the statement made in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was sought to be considered for Group b status which is in fact a promotion or posting at a higher post. In order to consider him for being granted Group b status he has been redesignated as Baildar. His case has already been forwarded for being considered for conferring such status and as soon the concurrence is given, the petitioner would be given Group b status. In order to consider him for being granted Group b status he has been redesignated as Baildar. His case has already been forwarded for being considered for conferring such status and as soon the concurrence is given, the petitioner would be given Group b status. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any cause of action simply because of missing certain privileges, viz. , washing allowance and cotton and woollen dress. It is allowed only for the purpose for the particular job done by a particular person. It is not a privilege. These are necessary for the purpose of doing particular Job. While doing the job of Baildar one is not required to use such dress. On these grounds, he prays that this writ petition should be dismissed. ( 3 ) I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the scale of Baildar and Helper are of Rs. 750-940. Few additional privileges does not make the post of Helper higher than the Baildar. It may be a case that for the purpose of performing the job of Helper, one may need certain type of dress while other may not need for doing their job. This is according to the necessity that might be felt at the industrial level which cannot be a question that might be agitated in writ jurisdiction. Even if such a question can be raised, the same can be raised before the Industrial Tribunal and not in a writ jurisdiction. Inasmuch as such question, if requires to be gone into. in that event, it requires examination of all other aspects, which this Court is not empowered to do on account of its limitation as has been imposed by the self-imposed restriction through judicial process. If the post of Helper is not a post higher or promotional. in that event, there is no question of reversion when posted as baildar. If it us not a case of reversion, in that event, it does not give any right of giving opportunity, etc. In the facts of the case as disclosed in the counter-affidavit, it does not appear that the impugned order is an order of reversion. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was designated as Helper irregularly at a point of time when such change of designation could be made only with the approval of the Head Office. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the petitioner was designated as Helper irregularly at a point of time when such change of designation could be made only with the approval of the Head Office. Admittedly, no approval was obtained from the Head Office while changing the designation of the petitioner from Baildar to Helper. Then again it was pointed out that the petitioners case was being considered for the purpose of conferring Group b status which is admittedly a promotional post with higher pay scale. In the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out that in order to consider the case of the petitioner for conferring Group b status, he was required to be designated as Baildar. Admittedly the petitioner is a daily wager. A daily wager cannot claim any right against a post. On that account also, he cannot claim any legal right to remain a Helper. It is in the administrative exigency, as has been disclosed in the counter affidavit, that he has been redesignated as Baildar. The purpose for which the redesignation has been resorted to appears to be bona fide. Though the question of its success is doubled by the petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit but it has not effectively denied the reason for redesignation as pointed out in the counter-affidavit. ( 5 ) THUS, it appears that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, there will be no order as to cost. .