SBCWP NO.4313/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4313/1997. Narendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- March 11, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Karan Pal Singh for the petitioners. Shri Chetan Bairwa, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying therein that respondents may be directed to modify their orders dated 27/4/1995 and 22/6/1996 and extend them status of a semi permanent employee from the date they were taken on muster roll. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in SBCWP No.1200/1994 (Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.) and SBCWP No.1201/1994 (Narendra Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.). It has been contended that in both the above referred to writ petitions, this court directed that petitioners be granted status of semi permanent from the date when junior them were granted status of semi SBCWP NO.4313/97. 2 permanent. The Executive Officer vide order dated 27/4/1995 granted status of semi permanent to the petitioners w.e.f. 1/1/1995. Subsequently on 20/9/1995, the Executive Engineer, PHED, has passed the order in compliance of the judgment of this court passed in above referred to writ petition. Shri Chetan Bairwa, learned counsel appearing for the Sate, opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned orders passed by the respondents. From the perusal of the reply, it is clear that the respondents have some how not granted benefit of semi permanent status to the petitioners as has been given to other similarly situated persons. The respondents have not clearly contested the claim of the petitioners that juniors to them were granted semi permanent status. Having considered the arguments raised by the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, I find hat reply submitted by the respondents on both counts is evasive and not certain. In the result, tis writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the respondents for redressal of their grievance and the respondents are directed to examine the same and decide it by SBCWP NO.4313/97. 3 a speaking order and if it is found hat persons referred to in above two writ petitions were junior to the petitioners, have been granted status of semi permanent, then case of the petitioners may also be considered accordingly. Compliance of this judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil