JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition should be disposed of at this very stage and the agony of the petitioner, who is out of service since, 1987, should come to an end. 2. Some facts have not been disputed and they are these: The petitioner was appointed as Fieldman, a work charged employee, by the Superintending Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, 563- Dadabari Extension Scheme, Kota, respondent No.2 under the Rajasthan Mines and Geology Department Work-charged Employees (Service Conditions) Order, 1974 (for short, the Work- charged Rules). He was appointed on 17th November, 1984. He had worked for more than 240 days continuously without any interruption as Field man. In the said Department, because some workmen had completed more than 240 days of service and became entitled for the benefit under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and other beneficial legislation, it appears that a Circular No. 122 dated 24th January, 1985 was issued that services of such workmen who have not completed 240 days since the date of their appointment should be terminated. It does not behave good for a welfare State to issue such a circular. Be that as it may, such circulars are being issued and, as was stated earlier in this case, it was issued. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order No.237 dated 28th February, 1987. Along with the petitioner, the services of one more workman, Bharat Bhushan, were also terminated. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 28th February, 1987 by instituting a civil suit for permanent injunction (Civil Suit No. 55/1987, Mahaveer Mali v. State and another , which was decided by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (South), Kota under judgment and decree dated 1st August, 1987. The learned Munsiff allowed the suit and made an order that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service in the present post i.e. Fieldman, upto 30th September, 1987 and further that it would be open that after the aforesaid judgment the defendant shall be free to terminate the services according to the work-charged rules. After the aforesaid order of the Munsiff, an order dated 29th Sept., 1987 was made by respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 1st Oct., 1987. After the aforesaid order of the Munsiff, an order dated 29th Sept., 1987 was made by respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 1st Oct., 1987. It was said in the order that it was in continuation of the order dated 28th February, 1987 and as per the order of the Court dated 1st August, 1987. 3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order but, later on, it was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition because due to inadvertence, in the writ petition the order of termination was not challenged. Again, a writ petition was filed, but it was withdrawn and liberty was given by the learned Single Judge to file a fresh one. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed in which beside challenging the order for non- compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was also prayed that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work-charged Rules, 1964 be declared as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Writ petition has been contested by the learned counsel for the respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has earlier filed a suit and writ petitions which were withdrawn and, hence, he cannot be allowed to challenge the same order. We have said earlier, the writ petitions which were filed were withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one. We are of the opinion that this objection has no force and the same is hereby rejected. 5. Before we proceed further with the matter, we have already stated that the services of one Bharat Bhushan had also been terminated. It will be necessary to state as to what has happened to the termination in the matter of Bharat Bhushan. Both, petitioner and Bharat Bhushan were appointed as Fieldman on the same day. Their services were terminated under order dated 28th February, 1987. Both of them filed suits in which directions as aforesaid, were given. The petitioner filed writ petition in this Court and at that time writ petitions were being heard by Division Bench. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2879/87. Their services were terminated under order dated 28th February, 1987. Both of them filed suits in which directions as aforesaid, were given. The petitioner filed writ petition in this Court and at that time writ petitions were being heard by Division Bench. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2879/87. In Bharat Bhushan v. State and others , decided on 26th October, 1988, it was held by this Court that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was application (sic applicable) and there was total non- compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of section 25F of the Act. It was held that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was non-est and illegal and the same was set aside. It was directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and he will be entitled to all consequential benefits. Besides the other grounds, which shall be stated hereinafter, one ground is that similarly situation (sic situated) person Bharat Bhushan has been reinstated and it is a sufficient ground to allow this writ petition. The persons situated similarly should be treated equally and no discrimination should be shown to them. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, as stated earlier, there can hardly be any dispute that the petitioner was working in the Mines Department and was governed under the Work-charged Rules and, as such, he is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. If that be so, the Mining Department is an industry. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is a 'workman' looking to the nature of his duties and the services rendered by him. It is not disputed that the petitioner immediately before termination of his services had completed more than 240 days of service continuously and, therefore, besides the procedure prescribed for termination of services of work-charged employees under the Work-charged Rules, it was necessary that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act must have been complied with. Compliance of the procedure prescribed under the Work-charged Rules alone was not sufficient. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 25F were not complied with and therefore, the termination of the petitioner was illegal, nonest and has to be ignored, being void ab initio. 7. Compliance of the procedure prescribed under the Work-charged Rules alone was not sufficient. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 25F were not complied with and therefore, the termination of the petitioner was illegal, nonest and has to be ignored, being void ab initio. 7. It was contended by Shri K.K. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondents, that earlier the writ petition was filed by Bharat Bhushan and it was allowed. That should not be taken into consideration because no reply was filed on ,behalf of the respondents. If the reply would have been filed, perhaps, the result would have been otherwise. If the reply would have been filed the result could not have been in favour of respondents since it could not have been made out that the petitioner had not worked continuously for 240 days and while terminating his services the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of termination of the petitioner cannot be allowed to stand. 8. Coming to the vires of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work- charged Rules, merely because in the Work charged Rules, three years' period has been prescribed before semi-permanent status can be conferred, substituted for two years, since both the Rules govern different sets of service, the provision prescribing three years services for conferment of semi-permanent status cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Thus, there is no force in the challenge to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work-charged Rules. 9. The question arises whether the petitioner should be awarded arrears of wages and reinstatement. It has already been stated that the order is dated 29th September, 1987. The petitioner filed two writ petitions which were withdrawn later on with liberty to file fresh one. The present writ petition was filed on 1st May, 1989. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled for 100% arrears of wages for the period he remained out of employment. Therefore, the ends o justice will be well served if prior to the period 1st May, 1989, the petitioner i awarded 30% of the arrears of wages and from 1st May, 1989, when this writ petition was filed, full wages. 10. Therefore, the ends o justice will be well served if prior to the period 1st May, 1989, the petitioner i awarded 30% of the arrears of wages and from 1st May, 1989, when this writ petition was filed, full wages. 10. Consequently, we allow this writ petition, quash and set aside the orde Annexure R/1, dated 28th February, 1987 and 29th September, 1987- passed after the decision of the writ petition. We order that the petitioner be reinstated and he will be entitled to full back wages from 1st May, 1989 and 30% wages from the date of termination till 30th April, 1989. For rest of the purposes, we hold the petitioner to be continuos in service and entitled for seniority etc. 11. Cost is made easy.Petition allowed. *******