Judgment :- BHASKARAN, J. The petitioner in the original petition is the appellant in the writ appeal. The original petition was filed for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be re-appointed and regularised in the post of peon in the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation on the basis of Ext. P2 Government Order dated 30-3-1995. The case of the appellant is that he is a physically handicapped person having 25% disability due to osteoarthrosis on his right elbow. According to the appellant, he had worked from 14-9-1993 to 1-10-1996 on temporary basis as peon. He had made two representations dated 14-9-1996 and 6-2-1997 claiming the benefit of Ext. P2 Government Order. The second respondent informed the Government by Ext. P3 communication that the appellant was not appointed through employment exchange and he was engaged only on daily wage basis and therefore, he cannot be regularised in service on the basis of Ext. P2 Government Order. The appellant challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent denying him the benefit of regularisation. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that since the appellant was not engaged through employment exchange, Ext. P2 Government Order is not applicable in the case of the appellant. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent had taken up the issue of regularisation of the appellant and others with the Government, and the Government declined the request by Ext. R2(a). It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that there is no vacancy in the post of peon. The learned single Judge has dismissed the original petition holding that Ext. P2 Government Order is applicable only to those physically handicapped persons who are appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules through employment exchange and the causal employees do not come under the purview of the above Government Order. The learned single Judge further held that Ext. P2 is a concession granted to physically handicapped employees and it is in variation of the normal method of recruitment. Therefore, the conditions in the Government Order had to be strictly satisfied for availing its benefit. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge held that the contention of the 2nd respondent was valid and the original petition was dismissed.Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the idea behind Ext. Therefore, the conditions in the Government Order had to be strictly satisfied for availing its benefit. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge held that the contention of the 2nd respondent was valid and the original petition was dismissed.Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the idea behind Ext. P2 is to help the physically handicapped persons and efforts must be made to enforce those benefits to such persons whenever possible. It was also contended that the 2nd respondent has admitted in the counter affidavit that Ext. P2 Government Order is applicable to persons appointed under the 2nd respondent also and therefore the appellant is entitled to get re-appointment and regularisation in service. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention of the appellant, for more than one reason. A reading of Ext. P2 will show that it was intended to benefit the physically handicapped provisional employees appointed through employment exchanges under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules during the period of from 1-1-1993 to 31-7-1994. The appellant was admittedly not appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Rules through the employment exchange. The appellant has not produced any appointment order to establish his nature of appointment. Ext. P1 medical certificate is dated 7-1-1998 and it was obtained long after he ceased to be an employee under the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, appellant was engaged only on daily wage basis without any public advertisement or notification and no letter of appointment was given to him. Therefore, Ext. P2 Government Order is not in terms applicable to the appellant. Since the 2nd respondent is the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation, it cannot be said that the appellant was engaged in public service. Further, Ext. P2 states that the question whether the services of the physically handicapped employees who had put in similar provisional services in public sector undertakings, local bodies and autonomous bodies during the period from 1-1-1993 to 31-7-1994 should be regularised or not can be decided by those bodies themselves taking into consideration the interest of the Organisation and to that extent permissive sanction is also granted. It can thus be seen that the applicability of Ext. P2 in a public sector undertaking is subject to the further conditions. It shows that there is no liability to re-appoint a person even if there is no vacancy available. It can thus be seen that the applicability of Ext. P2 in a public sector undertaking is subject to the further conditions. It shows that there is no liability to re-appoint a person even if there is no vacancy available. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that another employee by name Natarajan who was also working in the office of the 2nd respondent was given the benefit of Ext. P2 Government Order. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the said Natarajan was appointed through employment exchange and that he stood on a different footing from that of the appellant.It is not possible to hold that the stand of the employer is in any way illegal or unjustified so as to warrant interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the appellant attempt to draw strength from the decision of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 3621 of 1996 holding that Ext. P2 is a beneficial piece of Government Order and it should be interpreted literally and its benefits must be given to those who were not appointed through employment exchange also. But a subsequent decision of the Division, Bench in W.A. No. 1462 of 1998 reported in State of Kerala v. Sasikala, (2000 (1) KLT SN 54) has taken the view that the benefit of the Government Order is not available to those appointed on contractual basis. The position of the causal workers employed on daily wage basis is also the same. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh, (AIR 1999 SC 1160). That decision arose under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, and there was already a finding by the Labour Court that the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service along with the 10% back wages. On the facts of this case the decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable. The question as to whether the dependents of casual or ad hoc employees are entitled to the benefit of employment under the Dying-in-harness Scheme was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi (AIR 1996 SC 2445) and negatived on the touch stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We also feel that the same principle is applicable while considering the claim of the appellant. We also feel that the same principle is applicable while considering the claim of the appellant. The appellant has filed CMP No. 3329 of 2000 to receive additional documents. A perusal of those documents will not show that the appellant was not working as a casual worker.We therefore, dismiss the appeal, confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Appeal dismissed.