1 20 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 506/2008 [CHANDRA SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.] Dated : 26.02.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.Anand Purohit for the petitioner. MrN.K.Mehta for the respondent. ***** The short controversy involved in this matter is regarding non grant of semi permanent and permanent status to the petitioner pursuant to the Workcharge Rules of 1964. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed by the respondents in the Year 1988 thus pursuant to the Rules 1964, he was entitled for grant of semi permanent and permanent status on completion of two years satisfactory service and same way permanent status on completion of 10 years of service. The petitioner was not extended the benefit as accrued under the Rules of 1964 thus he was forced to prefer the writ petition. In the pending writ petition of the Year 1992, interim order was passed and pursuant to it, though the petitioner was extended pay scale on provisional basis and since then petitioner is drawing the pay scale indicated in the order Annex.1 passed pursuant to the interim order of this Court in the writ petition No.4068/1992 and 4143/1992. The petitioner has now retired in th 2 Year 2008 as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, due to pendency of earlier writ petition, the status as was required to be given to the petitioner was not given by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to pendency of the earlier litigation benefit was extended to the petitioner as per interim direction and now petitioner having retired no other benefit can be made admissible. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after perusing the relevant rules along with record which shows that petitioner had completed two years as well as 10 years of service thus was eligible for consideration of his candidature for grant of semi permanent or permanent status which necessarily gives benefit of the pay scale at the first instance as prior to declaration of any employee as semi permanent, he draws wages on daily rate basis. In the present case, petitioner has already been permitted to draw regular pay scale though made on provisional basis however from the date of order of Annex.1 till retirement petitioner was drawing regular pay scale thus, the main benefit arising out of declaring an employee as semi permanent or permanent has virtually been given to the petitioner other than issuance of formal order in regard to semi permanent or permanent status. 3 In view of the above discussion, since the petitioner is entitled to seek an order declaring him semi permanent or permanent, a direction is given to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of semi permanent or permanent status on completion of 2 years and 10 years of service. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even earlier writ petitions of Year 1992 were allowed but necessary benefits were not extended. The respondents are directed to pass necessary order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However for the reason that petitioner has already been given pay scale from 1992, he would not be entitled for any past monetary benefit other than the benefit of re-fixation in the revised pay scale if not already given. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta