Judgment :- (Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.E/6738/04 dated 22.4.2005 and quash the same.) By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 22.4.2005, issued in Reference No. Na.Ka.E/6738/04, the writ petition has been filed. 3. The facts leading to the case are: In the year 1997, since, the 2nd respondent's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, for selection and appointment to the post of driver and basing on his performance in the interview, he was selected and appointed as a driver on daily wage basis with effect from 3.9.97. As per 12(3) settlement of the petitioner Corporation, on completion of 240 days, a daily wage employee should be made permanent. As far as the 2nd respondent is concerned, even after completing 480 days, his service was not made permanent. Hence, he filed an application before the 1st respondent claiming permanency from the date of completion of 480 days of service in 24 calendar months from the date of his appointment. Basing on the documents filed and the evidence adduced, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 22.4.2005 directing the writ petitioner to confer permanency from the date of completion of 480 days of service from the date of joining of the 2nd respondent on 3.9.97. Challenging this order, the writ petition has been filed. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the burden is on the workman to prove that he had completed 240 days as per 12(3) settlement. But, the 1st respondent totally ignoring this fact, passed the order dated 22.4.2005 directing the petitioner to confer permanent status. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had not completed 240 days. In fact, the 2nd respondent had completed 240 days only on 13.1.2000. As such, directing the petitioner to confer permanent status to the 2nd respondent/workman on completion of 480 days from the date of joining, namely, 3.9.97 is prima facie illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has contended that even as per the averment of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had completed 240 days on 13.1.2000. As such, directing the petitioner to confer permanent status to the 2nd respondent/workman on completion of 480 days from the date of joining, namely, 3.9.97 is prima facie illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has contended that even as per the averment of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had completed 240 days on 13.1.2000. As such, the writ petitioner is duty bound to confer permanency to the 2nd respondent with effect from 13.1.2000. Besides, the learned counsel contended that if permanent status is on the 2nd respondent with effect from 13.1.2000, his pay may be notionally fixed from 13.1.2000 and without paying the arrears from April, 2004, the workman can be paid the pay scale to which he is eligible, if permanency is conferred on him with effect from 13.1.2000. 6. I have considered the submissions of the respective counsel. 7. Admittedly, even as per the averment of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent had completed 240 days on 13.1.2000. As such, the 2nd respondent is eligible for permanency with effect from 13.1.2000. Once, permanency is conferred, certainly, the workman is eligible for consequential benefits from the date of permanency i.e., 13.1.2000. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has stated that though the 2nd respondent has to be conferred permanency with effect from 13.1.2000, his pay can be fixed notionally with effect from 13.1.2000 and actual payment can be made with effect from 1st April, 2006, which, in my opinion, is a very reasonable contention. As such, the writ petitioner is directed to confer permanent status to the 2nd respondent with effect from 13.1.2000 and to fix his pay notionally with effect from 13.1.2000 and make actual payment with effect from 1st April, 2006. The writ petitioner shall complete the above exercise within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed.