JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus that he be declared that he is a permanent servant in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the irrigation Department. ( 2. ) THE petitioner started his career as a driver in the Public Works department of Madhya Bharat and his appointment was on work charged establishment. The work Charged Establishment was governed by rules published in Madhya Bharat State Government Gazette dated 16-7-1953 (Annexure R-III of the petition ). After the States re-organisation, the work charged establishment was regulated by the provisions contained in Madhya pradesh P. W. D. Manual Vol. 1 and particularly, Rules 100 to 118 of the said Manual. In the Madhya Bharat State, 9 posts of drivers were sanctioned, in the set-up of the Public Works Department. The petitioners name does not find place amongst the persons borne on the sanctioned strength of nine drivers. Out of the above nine posts, only one post of driver, along with one nathulal who was holding the post of a driver was transferred to Irrigation department vide, Government of Madhya Pradesh, P. W. D. , Irrigation branch, Memo No. 6611/4727/19/e, dated 15-11-1962. Except one post which was transferred to Irrigation Department, there was no other post sanctioned on the regular establishment. The petitioner was working as a driver in the work charged establishment under combined formation transferred to Irrigation Department, vide Executive Engineer, P. W. D. (B. and R)Division, Gwalior, Office Order No. 7953/g, dated 3-7-1958. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as a mechanic on work-charged establishment with effect from 6-11-1961. The petitioner remained, till the time of filing of the petition, on the work charged establishment and not on the regular side. The petitioner now claims that he has been in continuous service of the Government though borne on work-charged establishment and is entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee of the Government. The petitioner seeks to draw strength from the Government policy that if the government servant works for more than three years, he is to be treated as quasi permanent. He further states that his juniors have been absolved on regular side but he has not been considered for absorption in the regular government service. ( 3. The petitioner seeks to draw strength from the Government policy that if the government servant works for more than three years, he is to be treated as quasi permanent. He further states that his juniors have been absolved on regular side but he has not been considered for absorption in the regular government service. ( 3. ) IN the return filed by the State, the stand taken is that the petitioner remained an employee on the work-charged establishment which did not carry any right to be absorbed as a permanent employee. A work-charged establishment employee could be re-employed after the completion of the work and thus he could continue in the service of the Government but cannot be absorbed as a permanent employee howsoever long he may have served on work charged establishment. In the return it is assured that the government has appointed a Committee to evolve a possibility of bringing the work charged employees into regular establishment. If the post of a mechanic is so created, they would consider the petitioners claim for being absorbed as a regular employee of the Government. ( 4. ) WE have gone through the relevant provisions of the Public Work department Manual and the averments in the petition but we are unable to see how the petitioners claim to be absorbed as a regular employee would be tenable The work charged employee could be re-appointed under para 10 of section 13 of the Public Works Department Manual but that does not advance his claim any further. It is true that the cases like the petitioners are hard but we do not think that we could issue any direction to the Government in absence of any mandatory obligation created by any statute to consider petitioners claim for being absorbed as a permanent employee. We, therefore, feel that the petition in wholly mis-conceived. In our opinion, since the Government is considering favourably to give redress to the work charged employees, we could not say anything more in the matter. The petitioners case may be considered by the Government sympathetically in the event of the Government choosing to absorb the work charged employees into a permanent cadre. However, the matter solely rests with the government. ( 5. ) WE, therefore, dismiss the petition, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.