1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.109/2008 Dana & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 20 th November, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.Bishnoi, for the petitioners. Mr. N.K.Mehta, for the respondents. .... The petitioners were initially employed as casual workmen in the work charged cadre of the Public Health & Engineering Department. Under an order dated 14.7.1995 the Executive Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Division Balotara declared the petitioners semi permanent as per provisions of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B&R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1964”). The grievance of the petitioners is that though the respondents have given semi permanent status to the petitioners from the date they completed two years of service but the actual benefits relating to status concerned are extended to them w.e.f. 21.1.1995. As per the petitioners they were working on the post relating to which semi permanent status is 2 conferred upon them, therefore, there was no reason for denying the actual benefits to the petitioners. Per contra, it is stated by the respondents that the semi permanent status though was allowed to the petitioners from the dates referred in the order dated 14.7.1995 but the financial benefits relating to conferment of semi permanent status was not allowed to them as the petitioners were conferred with semi permanent status at a belated stage. Heard counsel for the parties. As per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 the respondents were required to consider candidature of the casual workmen like the petitioners for conferment of semi permanent status on completion of two years of service. In the instant matter such consideration was not made immediately after completion of two years of service by the petitioner but somewhere in the year 1995. The delay caused in consideration is because of the respondents. If the respondents would have considered candidature of the petitioners for grant of semi permanent status as per the provisions of the Rules of 1964, they would have received all benefits on the date they completed two years of service. It is pertinent to note that even in the present case though the case of the petitioners was 3 considered for grant of semi permanent status in the year 1995 but the same is conferred with effect from the date the petitioners completed two years of service. The actual benefits relating to conferment of semi permanent status cannot be denied to the petitioners because of delay in consideration which is due to the respondents themselves. The petitioners, therefore, are certainly entitled to receive actual benefits relating to conferment of semi permanent status from the date the same is given to them. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow all consequential benefits to the petitioners actually from the date the semi permanent status is granted to them. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.