JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) The petitioners, who retired as Assistant Executive Engineers from the Kerala Agricultural University, seek to direct the respondents to reckon the provisional services rendered by the petitioners on daily wage basis for granting increment and re-fixation of pension. 2. The petitioners state that they joined services of the 1 st respondent on 20.09.1972 and 04.05.1973 respectively as Engineering Assistants on daily wage basis. Their services were regularised with effect from 12.07.1976 as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.07.1976. Before retirement, the 1 st petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.04.2003 requesting to reckon the provisional services rendered by him from 20.09.1972 to 11.07.1976 as qualifying services for pensionary benefits. The 2 nd respondent, however, rejected the request as per Ext.P3 order dated 19.12.2003. After retirement, their pension was calculated without counting the provisional services rendered by them. 3. The petitioners state that they came to know that the 2 nd respondent has issued Ext.P5 order dated 14.05.2019 reckoning the provisional services rendered by one Sri. E.K. Gokulan from 09.05.1973 to 11.07.1976 for granting increments and his pension was re-fixed counting the provisional service. The petitioners state that benefits were given to the said E.K. Gokulan pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.34870/2007. 4. The 1 st petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.22752/2020. The writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P9 judgment directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner specifically adverting to the declarations of law and directions in Ext.P6 judgment. The 2 nd respondent, however, again rejected the request as per Ext.P10 order dated 20.02.2021 holding that the daily wage service rendered by him does not satisfy definition of “same category” as per Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part I KSR. The representation submitted by the 2 nd respondent was also rejected for the same reason, as per Ext.P11. 5. The petitioners thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.8877/2021 and W.P.(C) No.13363/2021 challenging Exts.P10 and P11. This Court, as per Ext.P12 common judgment, directed the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the matter. The representations of the petitioners were again rejected holding that the petitioners have not rendered provisional services prior to their employments getting regularised. The 2 nd respondent further held that the posts of Engineering Assistants and that of Draftsman/Overseer Grade-I do not belong to the same category and hence Ext.P6 judgment in favour of Sri. The representations of the petitioners were again rejected holding that the petitioners have not rendered provisional services prior to their employments getting regularised. The 2 nd respondent further held that the posts of Engineering Assistants and that of Draftsman/Overseer Grade-I do not belong to the same category and hence Ext.P6 judgment in favour of Sri. E.K. Gokulan is erroneous. 6. The petitioners state that Exts.P13 and P14 orders passed by the 2 nd respondent are illegal and unsustainable. The 2 nd respondent has committed error in holding that the petitioners have not rendered provisional service prior to their employments getting regularised. Ext.P1 order would establish that it is an order of regularisation of the provisional appointments of the petitioners. The conclusion of the 2 nd respondent that the posts of Engineering Assistants and that of Draftsman / Overseer Grade-I do not belong to the same category is also erroneous. 7. The petitioners pointed out that by Ext.P12 judgment this Court had directed the 2 nd respondent to assess the nature of the work of the petitioners prior to regularisation to ascertain whether the posts of Engineering Assistants and that of Draftsman / Overseer Grade-I belong to the same category or not. That has not been done. 8. the petitioners pointed out that Sri. E.K. Gokulan was also initially appointed on daily wage basis. The 2 nd respondent therefore cannot refuse to count the daily wage service in respect of the petitioners for computation of pensionable service. The petitioners therefore sought to quash Exts.P13 and P14. 9. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the University, as per Ext.R2(a) order dated 12.09.1996, has ordered that the casual / permanent service of Class III and Class IV employees appointed from casual labourers will be counted as qualifying service, for terminal benefits only. This was intended for counting the casual service period of Class III and Class IV employees only. The petitioners do not fall within the said category. 10. The respondents submitted that the benefit given to Sri. E.K. Gokulan is contrary to the relevant provisions of law and therefore the petitioners cannot seek to extend the benefit to them. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is therefore liable to be dismissed. 11. The petitioners do not fall within the said category. 10. The respondents submitted that the benefit given to Sri. E.K. Gokulan is contrary to the relevant provisions of law and therefore the petitioners cannot seek to extend the benefit to them. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is therefore liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. The petitioners are retired Assistant Executive Engineers of the 1 st respondent-University. They were engaged on daily wage basis as Engineering Assistants during 1972 and 1973 to carry out urgent works taken up then. They were absorbed in the Kerala Agricultural University with effect from 12.07.1976 as per Ext.P1. Before their retirement on superannuation, the petitioners submitted representation to compute their provisional service for grant of increments and computation of pension. 13. A similarly situated employee E.K. Gokulan filed W.P.(C) No.34850/2007 taking note of the judgment in Idikula Abraham v. KSRTC and others [ 2005 (2) KLJ 602 ], this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant increment by reckoning the provisional service of the said E.K. Gokulan. This Court directed to reckon the said period also for computation of pensionable service. 14. W.P.(C) Nos.13363/2021 and 8877/2021 filed by the petitioners were disposed of by this Court by Ext.P12 common judgment. This Court took note of Government Decision No.2, under Rule 33 of Part I KSR. This Court was of the view that any decision will have to be taken by the University after assessment of the nature of work of the petitioners. The respondents, however, rejected the request of the petitioners as per Exts.P13 and P14. 15. In Exts.P13 and P14, the 2 nd respondent held that benefits were granted to E.K. Gokulan erroneously. When a person is appointed on daily wage basis, the said service cannot be counted for any purpose except for the daily wages earned. 16. As per the Government Decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part I KSR, the term “same category of posts” for the purpose of Rule 33 denotes posts satisfying the following conditions: (i) The posts should carry the same or identical scale of pay. (ii) The qualification and method of appointment should be the same. (iii) The posts should fall in the same service. 17. (ii) The qualification and method of appointment should be the same. (iii) The posts should fall in the same service. 17. In the case of the petitioners, their initial work was only on daily wage basis and not in any scale of pay. They had worked as Engineering Assistants on daily wage basis but their absorption in the Kerala Agricultural University service was as Draftsman / Overseer Grade-I and not as Engineering Assistants. Therefore, the period of service rendered by the petitioners on daily wage basis during 1972 to 1976 cannot be considered for grant of increment or computation of qualifying service for pension. 18. As regards the arguments raised by the petitioners with reference to the case of E.K. Gokulan, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Government of NCT of New Deli [ 2006 (3) KLT 601 ] that plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 cannot be advanced when any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals. In the facts of the case, I find that the petitioners have no legal right to get the period during which they employed as daily wage employees reckoned for the purpose of increments or pension. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.