JUDGMENT 1. 1. The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has framed the Workcharged Employees Service Rules, 1964. The petitioner No. 1 is the Union of the Work-Charged employees of the P.W.D. and the petitioner No. 2, is also a work-charged employee. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on behalf of the Union in its representative character for the grant of house rent allowance equal to the house rent granted to other civil servants. It will not be out of place here to refer to the provisions of Work-Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964, (here-in-after referred to as 'The Rules 1964'). Rule 3 of the said rules, provides that the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951, and other service rules effecting the service conditions of the regular establishment under the Government of Rajasthan shall he applicable to the members of these work-charged establishments only to the extent indicated in these rules. Thus, Rule 1 (3) partially restricts the application of this rule. The wages have been defined under Rule 2-K of the Rules, and it includes allowances also. Rule 3(1) provides 3 categories of work-charged employees which are as follows:- (i) Permanent status; (ii) Semi-permanent status; and (iii) Casual. 3. At present. we are only concerned, with the persons who are holding permanent status. Rule 3(2) provides that the employees who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory. Thus, an employee, who has completed 10 years of service is eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employee and it is the obligatory duty of the State Government, or any competent authority, to scrutinise the record after completion of 10 years services and to pass necessary orders according to rules, within reasonable time. Pendency for years together of not scrutinising the record may lead to the position that the person should be deemed to be a permanent employee and his status should be considered that of a permanent employee unless otherwise ordered. This does not mean that ipso-facto the employees will hold the permanent status. However unless adverse order is passed, they shall be deemed to be holding permanent status till the adverse order is passed. This does not mean that ipso-facto the employees will hold the permanent status. However unless adverse order is passed, they shall be deemed to be holding permanent status till the adverse order is passed. One should not forget that we are living in socialistic, secular republic of India. The distinction which is existing between haves and have notes will have to be removed. Basis concept of the Constitution is to disarm the stronger section of the society and to arm the weaker section of the society so that real equality in fact in the matter of social and economic justice may become reality. One should not forget that Chapter IV directs to the Site Government. to perform certain acts, within a reasonable time. A person who is holding the employment for 10 years can claim the same privilege which other employees of the State Government, are getting. 4. Mr. Shrimal, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent State, has tried to point out that the permanent status does not mean regular employment. I am of the view, that once a permanent status is given then there cannot be a different classification of a permanent employee and a regular employee. The permanent employee or a person who is holding the permanent status ipso-facto becomes a regular employee. It will not be out of place here to mention that the State Government, has declared number of persons holding permanent status. The persons who are holding permanent status have been given the benefit of the pension, gratuity and other benefits etc. A regular employee is an employee who has to be kept in employment till he attains the age of superannuation or he is removed from service on account of any disciplinary action or he is retired under Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The same principle will be applied to a person who is holding a permanent status of employment under the Rules of 1964. The same principle will be applied to a person who is holding a permanent status of employment under the Rules of 1964. The person who is holding the permanent status cannot be removed on the ground of non-availability of work Similarly, he will have to be kept in service till he attains the age of superannuation or he is otherwise removed from service either by way of penalty or by way of penal action or otherwise under Rule 244 of the R.S.R. The concept of equality provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, read with Chapter IV of the Constitution of India and the preamble of the Constitution leads me to conclude that a person who is holding a permanent status under the Rules of 1964, may be treated as a regular employee. 5. The source of employment may have relevance but we cannot forget the longevity or life of the employment. It cannot be allowed to be disqualification for ever. It will not be out of place here to mention that in the past number of persons have been declared as a permanent status holder and they have been given all facilities which are available to the regular employees. 6. On behalf of the petitioners, (Annexure-1) dated 21/22 January, 1981, the Government circular has been produced. In the said memo it has specifically been mentioned that the employees who have completed 10 years services or more on various occasions in the past were made regular by the Government from time to time. If this has happened in the past why it should be discontinued in future. It may become a condition of service on account of convention if not otherwise. Vide this (Annexure-I ). it was also clarified that such persons will get the benefit of house rent allowance and project allowance etc. It has further been clarified that these employees may be allowed house rent allowance equal to the servants in Civil Department. Vide (Annexure-2), there is an amendment in the Rules, regarding the payment of the house rent to the work-charged employees. It is not relevant as I am not dealing with the case of semi-permanent or causal workers. Annexure-3 is the document by which the ad-hoc bonus was granted to the employees. Vide (Annexure-2), there is an amendment in the Rules, regarding the payment of the house rent to the work-charged employees. It is not relevant as I am not dealing with the case of semi-permanent or causal workers. Annexure-3 is the document by which the ad-hoc bonus was granted to the employees. The Rules, were amended from time to time and we are not concerned as we are dealing with only the cases of the persons who are holding permanent status and not of the other work-charged employees. 7. Mr. Shrimal, learned counsel for the State with all vehemence at his command has submitted that even if the Court considers the permanent status holder employees at par with the regular employees even then it will not be within the jurisdiction of the Court to pass order in the matter of grant of house rent allowance. He has cited before me the case of Shri Shashi Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. 1975(2) SLR 283 . The relevant paragraph reads as under:- "Moreover the compensatory allowance is only a concession and it cannot he claimed as a matter of right. The Government has got a right to withdraw this concession at any time and it can by no stretch of imagination he said to be a condition of service. This is also a covered matter by Agar Singh v. The State etc (1972 SLR (H. P. Series) 284) . It would be further obvious from a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as State Bank of India, Supervising Officials Association and ors. v. The State Bank of India, Central Office Bombay represented by its Chairman, and another (1971 Lak. J. C. 41) , wherein it has been held that there the payment of dearness allowance by the State Bank of India, to the officers is only a privilege conferred by the Bank by its own volition and it is not part of the service condition under the law of contract, the officers have no right, whether fundamental or otherwise, to enforce the payment against the Bank. There is also a Supreme Court Authority reported as the State of Madhya Pradesh v. G. C. Mandavar (AIR 1954 S. C. 493) in which it has been held that grant of dearness allowance at a particular rate is, under R. 44 of the Fundamental Rules, a matter of grace and not a matter of right and hence claim against the Government, for the grant of such allowance at a particular rate is not justiciable. Further, it has also been held that mandamus can be granted when there is in the applicant a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules, confers no rights on the Government servants to the grant of dearness allowance it imposes no duty on the State to grant it. It merely confers a power on the State to grant compassionate allowance at its own discretion. No mandamus can therefore, issue to compel the exercise of such a power. Nor, indeed, could any other writ or direction be issued in respect of it, as there is no right in the applicant which is capable of being protected or enforced." 8. Mr. Shrimal, further submits that the mandamus can only be granted where there is a right to compel a performance of the duty cast on the opponent. As far as this preposition of law is concerned, there cannot be two opinions. I will have to examine whether the duty is cast on the respondents to treat the permanent status holder persons as a regular employees or not. From the perusal of (Annexure-1) it is very clear that the State Government, was treating the permanent status holders at par with the regular employees. Apart from that no distinction can be made ordinarily in the case of the clean record holders who are eligible for permanent status under the Rules of 1964 like regular employees. A person after serving with the State Government for 10 years. claims that he should be considered as a regular employee and all facilities which are available to the regular employees should he given to him. A person after serving with the State Government for 10 years. claims that he should be considered as a regular employee and all facilities which are available to the regular employees should he given to him. The law of equality, the law of justice the law of equity and the rule of disarming the strong man and arming the weaker section of the society requires that the Chapter IV of the Constitution of India,should he implemented; if any other interpretation is given it will take away the vested right of the employees and will he against the public policy. What is the cause of dis-continuing of the post practice is not available on record. They can claim the benefit even under the doctrine of estoppel. The equality requires that similar situated persons should be treated at par and the benefit which has been extended in the past to the work charged employees should not be dis-continued in future, it is the obligatory duty of the competent authority to pass necessary orders according to rules after examining the service record and if the authorities fail to do so provisionally, it can be deemed that the persons has acquired the permanent status and that status can only be taken away after examining the record and after passing the necessary order. Not to pass order for years together is nothing but an exploitation to the labourer and it is not permissible under the law. The authorities must know that they are for the welfare of their subordinates as well as for the performance of the duties cast on them. If any of their subordinate fails to perform the duties, it should not be taken lightly and they should be punished and no leniency should be shown. However to sit over the papers for years together amounts to the denial of the rights which has been given to the employees under the Rules of 1964. So provisionally, they can be treated as permanent status holders unless till the adverse order is passed subsequently within a reasonable time. However to sit over the papers for years together amounts to the denial of the rights which has been given to the employees under the Rules of 1964. So provisionally, they can be treated as permanent status holders unless till the adverse order is passed subsequently within a reasonable time. This will be harmonious consideration of the rules and it will give right to the State to declare that a person who is not eligible for the declaration as a permanent status holder and at the same time it will compel to the State to take a decision and will check the practice of exploiting the labour or to wait for a contingency which need not be expressed in the judgment that was expressed during the arguments. Rule 12 of the said Rules, deals with the pay and emoluments and there should he a separate emoluments, pay and allowances, but that emolument comes to an end as soon as the employees get the permanent status. A person cannot be allowed to work throughout the life that the benefit of pension which is available to the Government servant if he opts for the same. 9. A person who has worked for 10 years, initially had a contractual obligation however, under the Rules he is getting a permanent status. Thus, giving of the status over-rides the contractual obligations and to give more powers to the persons who are holding the equal status. 10. For this reason, I am also of the view that there (sic they) should be equated for that purpose with the so called employees and they acquire the status of the regular employees. 11. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners, is accepted. The respondents are directed to pay the house rent allowance to all the employees who have acquired the permanent status after completing the services of 10 years. In case, where no order has been passed, it is directed that the cases of such employees shall he reviewed within a period of 6 months after scrutinising the service record and the necessary orders shall be passed. In case, necessary orders are not passed within the aforesaid time, then it shall be deemed that they have acquired the permanent status. In case, necessary orders are not passed within the aforesaid time, then it shall be deemed that they have acquired the permanent status. The permanent status work-charged employees shall also be paid house rent allowance just like other civil service employees from the date of filing of the writ petition. 12. This judgment shall also be applied to those employees who are not party in this writ petition or who have not come to this court or who have not filed the writ petition separately shall also be entitled to get the benefit which has been allowed in this writ petition to the permanent status holder.No order as to costs.Petition accepted. *******