J. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) FIFTY-SIX persons have joined together in this writ petition. They are working as drivers with the designation "casual bus driver," on being appointed as such, by the second respondent, Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) limited. ( 2 ) THE first bundle of undisputed facts is this. The second respondent introduced the bus division, and in course of time acquired a fleet of 300 buses; 192 of them regularly ply on routes. For recruiting drivers it published employment notices to invite applications, tested and interviewed the candidates, prepared select lists, got the selected candidates medically examined, and finally appointed the successful ones without any formal appointment letters. From the very inception the drivers were appointed with the designation "casual bus driver". Through same processes and with same designation, the petitioners were appointed during the period from December 23rd, 1994 to September 11th, 2001. ( 3 ) THE further undisputed facts, which I treat as the second essential bundle of facts for deciding the issues in the case, are these. On January 1st, 1999 the Transport Department of the Government of West Bengal (the first respondent) issued an order for sanctioning, as a special case, regularization of 350 such casual bus drivers. It was mentioned that in future no further regularization would be allowed, and that all appointments should be made following existing rules and norms. On the basis of the order, the second respondent made 294 casual bus drivers permanent. Simultaneously it went on appointing drivers with the designation "casual bus driver. " At the present moment there are 336 such bus drivers, including the petitioners in the present case. The conditions of service of the employees of the second respondent are governed by the duly framed standing orders, certified by the competent authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act, 1946, section 5 (3 ). ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners wants me to declare that the petitioners were actually appointed as permanent bus drivers, though no such prayer has been made in the writ petition. He has read several standing orders to show that there is no scope to appoint any one as casual. He has taken great pain to show from the pleadings that though the petitioners were appointed with the designation "casual bus driver," they have actually been working as permanent bus drivers. He has read several standing orders to show that there is no scope to appoint any one as casual. He has taken great pain to show from the pleadings that though the petitioners were appointed with the designation "casual bus driver," they have actually been working as permanent bus drivers. He has referred me to three authorities, which are :-Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited v. Sri Badri Prosad and Ors. , AIR 1967 SC 513 ; Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 2650 ; K. K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 . The first case he has cited to drive home the point that a person engaged in jobs of permanent nature cannot be described as anything but a permanent employee. The second he has relied on in support of his contention that an employer is not free to enter into a separate agreement with some of his workmen in contravention of provisions of the standing orders. The third decision has been employed by him for pointing out the legal position that in exercise of powers under article 226, in a fit case, the writ Court is competent to give the necessary declaration. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the first respondent has chosen not to make any submission; and his client chose only to enter appearance. The second respondent is contesting by filing opposition. Its Counsel draws my attention to the fact that the arguments in connection with the relief for declaration are not founded on a case made out by the petitioners in their pleadings. He submits that the arguments should be ignored by me, because the petitioners cannot seek a declaration of the nature indicated by their Counsel unless the questions of fact essential for the purpose are adjudicated by appropriate forum. ( 6 ) I do no see any reason to say that the petitioners were illegally appointed by the second respondent. No provision of law has been shown to me that prohibits appointment of a driver by the second respondent with the designation "casual bus driver". ( 6 ) I do no see any reason to say that the petitioners were illegally appointed by the second respondent. No provision of law has been shown to me that prohibits appointment of a driver by the second respondent with the designation "casual bus driver". Simply because the standing orders do not mention about the appointment of an employee with the adjective "casual" placed before his designation, it cannot be said that if one is appointed, he would not be deemed as such, but would be deemed to be an employee falling in one or the other categories of employees mentioned in the standing orders. ( 7 ) IT also seems to me that the declaration, if made, is bound to change the whole scenario, into which both the parties willingly entered with their respective capacities. My order, if given to declare the petitioners as permanent bus drivers, would, in reality, amount to re-writing the terms and conditions on which the selection processes had been initiated, and the petitioners were appointed. In my view, such an order will be much beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the writ Court, which essentially proceeds on the basis of undisputed facts. Besides, the petitioners have not filed the writ petition for such relief. There is no statement of facts and prayer in the pleading for considering this aspect of the case. ( 8 ) THE propositions pressed into service on the strength of the three authorities cited to me do not provide any assistance, as there contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is not founded on a case made out in the writ petition. Hence I do not find any scope to grant the relief of declaration as wanted by the Counsel for the petitioners. ( 9 ) RELIEF in the shape of equal pay for equal work has also been sought without laying the foundation for it in the writ petition. As expected, counsel for the second respondent did not spare a moment for expressing his surprise when he heard the Counsel for the petitioners making submissions on this aspect. I think, the point should not detain me for any longer period, because I am again not minded to entertain and examine a plea for which no foundation has been laid in the writ petition. I think, the point should not detain me for any longer period, because I am again not minded to entertain and examine a plea for which no foundation has been laid in the writ petition. A host of essential questions of fact are necessary to be decided for holding that the petitioners are equally situated in every respect with the permanent bus drivers. There is absolutely nothing on which the questions can be decided. So I do not find any scope to grant any relief regarding this plea also. ( 10 ) THE writ petition was filed for enforcing the order dated April 29th, 2000, which was passed by the second respondent as a follow up action, needed for implementing the transport department order dated January 1st, 1999. The petitioners prayed for mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the said order dated April 29th, 2000. I would not say that the petitioners were not entitled to express their grievances regarding non- implementation of the order in full; they wanted the benefits of the decision taken by the respondents to give benefits of permanent driver to the drivers working with the designation "casual bus driver. " The question is what relief at the present moment I can grant to the petitioners on the basis, of the decision dated April 29th, 2000. ( 11 ) I am told, and it is not disputed by Counsel for the petitioners, that the second respondent is in impecunious condition, and that it is entirely dependent on the regular subsidy given by the Government at around the rate of rupees five crores per month. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons I am going to state, I must proceed on the basis that the Government has been taking all the policy decisions for the second respondent. Even after lot of enquiries, I could not locate the source of the power, in exercise whereof the Government has been taking all the policy decisions for the second respondent which is a Government company under the Companies Act, 1956, Section 617. It has been stated by the second respondent that as a matter of policy involving public interest the Government has been ensuring the running of its bus division, and in the process a staggering sum is being spent by the Government in regular course. It has been stated by the second respondent that as a matter of policy involving public interest the Government has been ensuring the running of its bus division, and in the process a staggering sum is being spent by the Government in regular course. ( 13 ) COUNSEL for the second respondent has cited to me the decision in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors. , AIR 2001 sc 706 while pointing out that the prevailing financial condition of his client should be considered before I decide the issue of giving benefits of permanent driver to the petitioners. I find substantial force in his submission. I also acknowledge the force of the case made out by the petitioners in connection with their prayer for benefits of permanent driver. ( 14 ) IT is true that the second respondent should not be driven to the stage of death by an order passed by me, which it cannot implement. I think, i should not loose sight of the fact that it is surviving on Government subsidy and the Government has been continuing with it only in public interest. At the same time, to my mind, it will be an injustice to the petitioners if I say that they are free to quit the second respondent, and that they are not entitled to force themselves upon the respondents. ( 15 ) IN my view the Government should rise to the occasion, and the second respondent must respond as an ideal employer. It is for them to find out an honourable solution in order to see that in the process of their public interest activities the hapless petitioners are not used as the sacrificial objects. The petitioners have been serving for no small period. A proper procedure was followed for recruiting, selecting and appointing the petitioners; at least no other procedure prescribed for the purposes by any rule has been brought to my notice. The designation given to the petitioners is nothing but a misnomer. They are working continuously like the drivers who have since been given the benefits of permanent driver. I am told the same benefits have not been given to the petitioners only because of the financial condition of the second respondent. The designation given to the petitioners is nothing but a misnomer. They are working continuously like the drivers who have since been given the benefits of permanent driver. I am told the same benefits have not been given to the petitioners only because of the financial condition of the second respondent. To my mind, the Government and the second respondent will be well advised to see that necessary steps for giving the petitioner the benefits of permanent driver are taken before things reached a humiliating situation. ( 16 ) I think, I shall not be thought unappreciative of the facts, if I say that there is a strong case to reach a conclusion that a permanent need did always exist and does still exist, for engaging the petitioners. If this is so, the unanswered question is : why the petitioners should be made to suffer in terms of money and other benefits which the fortunate ones, since made permanent, are enjoying? I do no find any just answer. So I am minded to give some directions to the Government and the second respondent for the purpose of ensuring that the petitioners get the benefits in near future. ( 17 ) WITH the above findings and observations, I dispose of the writ petition by the following order :- within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order the respondents, and in particular the Government and the second respondent, shall frame a scheme for giving all the benefits of permanent bus driver (like the ones working at the present moment under the second respondent) to the petitioners. Till such benefits are extended none of the petitioners working at the present moment shall be disengaged except on the ground of proven misconduct. The scheme shall ensure that none of the petitioners stands unjustly eliminated. The authorities shall also take a decision about the feasibility of paying the petitioners at higher rates till they get benefits of permanent driver in terms of the scheme. This decision shall also be taken within the same period. ( 18 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to pass any order for costs in favour of any of the parties. Hence there will be no order for costs in the writ petition.