1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2089/1994. Om Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2092/1994. Prem Chand Patar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2095/1994. Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2093/1994. Bhanwar Lal Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : : 14.10.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma for the petitioners. Mr.B.L.Awasthi, Addl.Government Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions with the prayer that they were actually engaged to discharge the duties in the office of respondents and working as Store Munshi, but they were wrongly granted the semi-permanent status on the post of Beldar by order dated 13.4.1994 w.e.f. 2 14.4.1994. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant them benefit of semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi/LDC/Assistant Store Keeper in accordance with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 with effect from the date when they completed two years of continuous service and they be further directed to grant them consequential benefits and arrears accordingly and the order dated 13.4.1994, by which they were granted semi-permanent status, be quashed and set aside. These writ petitions were decided by judgment of this Court dated 30.7.2001. By the said judgment, Chief Engineer of Public Health & Engineering Department of the respondents was directed to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in the light of an earlier judgment of this Court in Prem Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan : SB Civil Writ Petition No.1414/1992 decided on 23.3.1993 by a reasoned and speaking order. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to revive the writ petition in case the matter was finally decided against them. The aforesaid order was complied by the respondents and the Chief Engineer passed a detailed order dated 14.11.2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for 3 declaring them semi permanent on the post of Store Munshi/LDC/Assistant Store Keeper with effect from the date they were declared semi permanent on the post of Beldar. The writ petitions were thereafter revived on the petitioners making application in that behalf. This is how the matters have again come up before this Court for final disposal. Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Prem Narain, supra, according to which the petitioners, who were actually discharging the duties in the office of respondents mostly of clerical nature, are entitled to be declared semi-permanent on the post of Store Munshi/LDC/Assistant Store Keeper. The respondents have illegally denied them the benefits by rejecting their case in the order dated 14.11.2002. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners were granted semi-permanent status on the post of helper though they were working on a higher post than the post of Beldar, but that could provide no solace to them because each of them were highly qualified and actually discharging the duties of Store Munshi/LDC/Assistant Store Keeper. Their writ petitions, therefore, be allowed in terms of the judgment in the case of Prem Narain. 4 Shri B.L.Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the petitioners in fact already stood declared semi-permanent on the higher post of work charged Assistants in the scale of Rs.800-1250/- much before the date, the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court directing the Chief Engineer to consider and decide their case for grant of benefit of semi permanent on the post of Store Munshi/LDC/Assistant Store Keeper. The said judgment was passed because the petitioners never brought the subsequent order dated 8.8.1996 declaring them work charged Assistants with effect from the date of their completing two years. Had this order been brought to the notice of the Court, possibly that judgment would not have been issued. In any case, the petitioners all through remained satisfied with the making them semi-permanent as Assistant and never challenged this order subsequently even though it was passed long ago on 8.8.1996. It was argued that mere fact that a remark was made by the Executive Engineer in the list forwarded to Chief Engineer that petitioners were working in the office, did not necessarily imply that they were actually discharging the duties of the post of Store Munshi. They could not be straightway conferred the semi permanent status on that post upon 5 completion of two years. Learned Additional Government Counsel further submitted that now after completion of ten years of working, the petitioners have further been granted permanent status. The consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the records reveal that the petitioners in fact never brought on record the subsequent developments, which had an important bearing on these petitions pending before this Court. The petitioners have been granted semi permanent status on the post of Assistant and started withdrawing their salary in the higher scale as work charged Assistants from 1996 onwards. They not only did bring this order dated 8.8.1996 on record but they also did not seek to amend the writ petitions thus implying that they accepting correctness of that order. This fact, came on record for the first time in the order of Chief Engineer dated 14.11.2002, whereby the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Subsequently, the respondents have further granted them benefit of permanent status to the petitioners on the post of work charged helpers and some of the petitioners are presently even holding higher post, none of which facts has been brought on record. It is a contentious issue that whether or not the petitioners, even though they were shown working in the office, were actually 6 discharging the duties of Store Munshi/LDC/Assistant Store Keeper and in the light of the facts narrated above, a mandamus directing the respondents to straightway declare them semi permanent on any of these three posts with effect from the date they completed two years, cannot possibly be issued. Moreover, the petitioners themselves have remained satisfied with the order dated 8.8.1996 and they have never challenged this order subsequently even though it was passed long ago on 8.8.1996. In view of above, I do not find merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item Nos.S/5 to 9.