1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1215/2002. : : Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 16.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Suresh Kashyap for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shankar Lal, who has claimed that his son Late Shri Banwari Lal was appointed as Beldar in Sub-Division VI of Public Works Department, Jaipur in the month of June, 1989 and that his services were terminated on 1.5.1990 against which an industrial dispute was raised and was referred to Labour Court. Learned Labour Court passed an award on 21.11.1994 declaring his termination as illegal and directing his reinstatement with continuity and full back wages, the award became final. Petitioner's son Late Shri Banwari Lal was reinstated in service w.e.f. 9.1.1996, but unfortunately he died on 15.3.1998. 2 Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner in the present writ petition is claiming the benefit of semi-permanent status to his late son with all consequential benefits. It is submitted that petitioner was appointed in June, 1989 and on completion of two years he was entitled to semi-permanent status but his case was not at all considered by the respondents. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that late son of the petitioner did not actually discharge the duties from the date of his termination on 1.5.1990 till he was reinstated in service in January, 1996. The requirement of Rule 3 of Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 was that semi-permanent status could be conferred only upon satisfactory service and since he did not discharge the duties from 1.5.1990 to 9.1.1996 there was no occasion to declare him semi-permanent. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and material forming part of the record, it is evidently clear that petitioner's son Banwari Lal initially engaged in June, 1989 is not disputed and this is also not disputed that by award of the Labour Court he was directed to be reinstated with continuity. He thus would be deemed to continue till 3 15.3.1998. When the continuity was granted and there was something adverse against him, the benefit of semi- permanent could not be declined. Even otherwise, the respondents have asserted that in his service record they found any adversity to deny him such benefits, nothing of this kind was found when he was reinstated in January, 1998 and worked till 15.3.1998. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner's late son for grant of semi-permanent status according to Rule 3 of Work Charged Employees Service Rules and if his service record is found satisfactory, grant him semi-permanent status with effect from the date on which he completed two years. Consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.11.