ORDER
Vikramjit Sen, J.
1. The Petitioner has prayed for the passing of an appropriate orders for reinducting and regularising him as a driver in the services of Respondent No.1. It is his case that although he was the driver of the Chairman and Managing Director of National Housing Bank, Respondent No.1, he was in fact in the direct employment of the Bank.
2. Ms. Geeta Mittal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has contended that it has always been the policy of Respondent No.1 not to engage the services of any driver, and this is to be the Company’s policy. She has contended that there is no cadre of a Driver. Whenever its Officers have engaged personal drivers, a reimbursement was permitted to these Officers on a scale set down by the Respondents. It was her contention that at no point of time did the Petitioner receive any wages from the Respondents and a perusal of the documents filed with the Petition inexorably show that he served only in the personal employment of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank. It was further contended that since there is not even a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner in respect of his having been absorbed in the employment of the Respondents, disputed questions of fact have arisen the determination of which in Writ proceeding, would not be appropriate.
3. I have perused the documents filed along with the Petition and am unable to extract there from any evidence which would even obliquely indicate that the Petitioner had been absorbed in the employment of the Respondents. In the payments that were made to the Petitioner, it was specifically stated that he was in the personal employment of the Chairman and Managing Director. Reimbursement of conveyance expenses including the payment of wages for petrol etc., would not constitute salary or show that the Petitioner was an employee of the Respondents. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to enter into the arena of this controversy in Writ Proceedings. In the Writ Petition, it is the Petitioner’s own case that his termination was by verbal orders and he was also employed orally. She is not an iota of evidence on either of these vital questions.
4. The Writ Petition is, accordingly dismissed. The Petitioner may take recourse to any other legal proceedings to prove that he was employed with Respondent No.1.