JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners Bhairon Singh son of Vikram Singh and Sharafat Khan son of Sherkhan, have jointly filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to treat them as semi permanent employees with effect from the date of completion of two years' service and to pay them regular pay scale by regularising their services as is being done in the cases of employees of the Public Works Department. 2. Case set up by the petitioners is that they were appointed in the service of Forest Department on daily wages as Cattle Guard with effect from 3.3.87 and 1.4.86 respectively. Both of them are continuously working in the work charged establishment of the Forest Department. Their names have been included at serial Nos. 60 and 45 respectively. In the seniority list of work-charged employees/daily waged employees issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Jaipur (West) containing names of persons who have completed minimum of 240 days of service. Petitioners have pleaded that the duties being discharged by them are identical to the duties being discharged by other employees working in Public Works Department and other sister departments of the Government. By making reference to the provisions of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B&R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works, Ayurvedic Department Work Charged Employees Service Rules 1964 (for short 'the Rules'), the petitioners have pleaded that they have become entitled to be given the benefit of semi permanency on completion of two years' service. They have made reference to the decision of this Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) RLR 702 , and pleaded that in a similar case of Kaluram Jat v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3309/91 decided on 18.9.91 this Court has given relief of semi permanency to the employees on completion of two years' service. They too have served a notice for demand of justice for being declared as semi permanent but the respondents have not taken steps for declaring them semi permanent. 3. In opposing the writ petition the respondents have raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of joint writ petition and have stated that since the petitioners have failed to pay appropriate court fees they are not entitled to get relief from this court. 3. In opposing the writ petition the respondents have raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of joint writ petition and have stated that since the petitioners have failed to pay appropriate court fees they are not entitled to get relief from this court. Another objection raised by the respondents is that several questions of fact are required to be determined by the court and it is not proper for the court to make an adjudication of such questions of fact by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. On merits the respondents have admitted the date of appointment of petitioners but have stated that the petitioners have worked under National Rural Eradication Programme, Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme/Jawahar Rozgar Yojna for different periods. On the basis of this assertion the respondents have pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to be declared as semi-permanent. While admitting that this court has given direction for giving benefit of semi permanency in Kalu Ram Jat's case and also that provisions of Work-Charged Service Rules have been made applicable, respondents have stated that cases of employees employed upto 18.1.89 are governed by the standing order 1973 as per pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the Rules of 1964 are not applicable to their cases. A reference has also been made to the facts that on 17.12.93 this Court has given direction in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2749/93 Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. State & others for constitution of a committee of the officers of Forest Department to look into the grievances of the employees. According to the respondents this committee is considering all the matters and the cases of the petitioners are also likely to be examined by the committee. 4. Before deciding the writ petition on merits, it is proper to dispose of the two preliminary objections raised by the respondents. First objection relates to the maintainability of a joint writ petition with an ancillary objection that appropriate court fees has not been paid. In my opinion, the objection of respondents is without any substance. Although the dates of appointment of the two petitioners are different but substance of the claim made by both the petitioners is identical. 30th of them have claimed grant of a declaration that they have become semi permanent after completion of two years' service. In my opinion, the objection of respondents is without any substance. Although the dates of appointment of the two petitioners are different but substance of the claim made by both the petitioners is identical. 30th of them have claimed grant of a declaration that they have become semi permanent after completion of two years' service. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the filing of joint writ petition by the two petitioners. This court has on more than one occasion held that the writ petition cannot be dismissed only because of joinder of more than one parties as petitioner. In a recent decision Lecturers Forum v. State, 1993(1) WLC 654 , this Court has held that filing of joint petitions where reliefs claimed are almost identical, deserves to be encouraged in the larger national interest. In view of that decision, I do not find any justification to deny relief to the petitioners merely because two persons have jointly filed this writ petition. Objection regarding absence of appropriate court fees has not been supported by any provision of law. It has not been shown by the learned counsel for respondents as to under what provision of law separate court fees is required to be paid when a single petition is filed by two or more persons. That apart in so far as this case is concerned, both the petitioners have separately filed court fees of Rs. 25. For these reasons, the first preliminary objection is over-ruled. 5. Second preliminary objection relates to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. Plea of the respondents is that questions of fact are required to be determined in this case and, therefore, this court must not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. At the very outset, I must mention that this objection is based on a wholly misconceived assumption that questions of fact cannot be determined by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. The principle of law which has developed over the years is that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Courts will ordinarily not make an adjudication on questions of fact which are seriously disputed and adjudication of which depends on evidence to be led by the parties. This principle cannot be applied in each and every case blind folded by saying that questions of fact are required to be determined. In M/s. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. This principle cannot be applied in each and every case blind folded by saying that questions of fact are required to be determined. In M/s. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021 , an objection which was similar to the one raised by the respondents, found favour with Bombay High Court, Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed summarily with an observation that questions of fact are required to be decided and the High Court will not issue a writ. While reversing the decision of Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court observed:- "..Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary." Even in cases where disputed questions of fact are required to be determined, the High Court can in appropriate cases make an adjudication. In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei & others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 , the Supreme Court laid down the following principle:- "Under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court is not precluded from entering upon a decision on questions of fact raised by the petition. Where an enquiry into complicated questions of fact arises in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the right of an aggrieved party to obtain relief claimed may be determined, the High Court may in appropriate cases decline to enter upon that enquiry and may refer the party claiming relief to a suit. But the question is one of discretion and not of jurisdiction of the Court. Where the question in dispute is about the regularity of the enquiry and the High Court is apparently of the view that the question whether the State acted arbitrarily did not raise any question of investigation into complicated issues of fact, no interference with the exercise of discretion of the High Court is called for. (Underlining is mine) 6. In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, I have little hesitation in rejecting the second preliminary objection. 7. (Underlining is mine) 6. In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, I have little hesitation in rejecting the second preliminary objection. 7. Coming to the merits, I may observe that the question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner have a right to be declared semi permanent employees in the Forest Department after completion of two years' service. In order to decide this question, it is necessary to make reference to some developments which have taken place during last six years in the form of decisions of this court and the Apex Court. In Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & others, 1987(1) RLR 702 , petitioner Mohan Singh had claimed that their service conditions should be ordered to be governed either under the Work-Charged Service Rules, 1964 or the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Similar claim was made by Van Vibhag Employees Union in a separate writ petition filed before this Court. The Court took notice of the scheme of 1964 Rules and observed that these Rules constitute a comprehensive code containing provisions for grant of status of semi permanent and permanent to work-charged employees of Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, Water Works Department and Ayurvedic Department. Their seniority, promotions, retirement, etc. are also governed by those Rules. The Court also took notice of the fact that standing orders framed by the Forest Department had been approved because the authorities had come to a conclusion that employees of Forest Department could not be denied the benefits which are being given to the work-charged employees of other Departments of the Government. The court then proceeded to observe that after taking that decision, the Government had not implemented it and employees of the Forest Department are still living under uncertain conditions. The court then proceeded to observe that after taking that decision, the Government had not implemented it and employees of the Forest Department are still living under uncertain conditions. The Court observed:- "..When the Government has taken a decision, has made rules regulating service conditions of the employees under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the work-charged employees of the P.W.D. and other departments as aforesaid, there appears to be no justification as to why the petitioner Mazdoor Sangh and other similarly situated employees of the Forest department should be denied the benefits of the relevant rules more so when the standing orders were approved by the State Government as far back as 1973." The Court gave following directions: "Consequently, I allow these writ petitions and direct the respondents that they shall govern the service conditions of the employees of the Forest Department under the standing orders or the rules whatsoever nomenclature may be given to the approved rules which were framed by the Forest Department and which were approved by the Government under the letter of the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan Revenue (Gr.A) Department No. F.7 (396) Ra.K/71 dated 8.5.1973. The employees shall be entitled for the benefits of the workcharged employees under, those rules from the date the standing orders or rules were approved by State Government." This order of the learned Single Bench was made subject matter of appeal before a Division Bench and then before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State was granted by the Apex Court and Civil Appeal No. 3539/89 was decided by the Supreme Court on 14.8.89 with the following directions:- "Heard Counsel. The impugned order of the High Court is affirmed and the date for the applicability of the Standing orders/Rules is determined as from 8.5.73. The State is given four months time to give the benefits. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs." An application for extension of time and for grant of exemption was thereafter moved by the State of Rajasthan and while considering the said application, the Court adjourned the proceedings for six months but at the same time directed payment of Rs. 2000 to each of the employees. 8. 2000 to each of the employees. 8. Proceedings of contempt were also filed before the Supreme Court on account of non-implementation of the directions given by the Apex Court. While deciding the contempt petition, the Supreme Court gave some more directions on 29.10.91:- "In our view, prima facie the direction to regularise the employees who have completed ten years of service by making them permanent and those who have completed two years of service by making them semi-permanent (Quasi-permanent) will apply to all employees of the Forest Department of the State of Rajasthan, irrespective of whether they were employed under the Rules of the standing orders and that this direction will cover all employees who have taken employment upto 18.1.89. At this stage learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan has again applied for adjournment on the ground that the State will have to ascertain the number of employees who would be covered by this order and the number of posts which will have to be made permanent and semi-permanent and that will take a considerable amount of time. Unfortunately, we find that applications for postponment of hearing have been made from time to time on same ground or the other. However, we do realise that the State of Rajasthan will have to make some efforts in order to ascertain these questions and to work out financial burdens involved, although these questions cannot really affect the employment of the concerned persons in compliance with the final direction of High Court or Supreme Court. In order to leave no room for grievance we direct that at this stage all such employees as we have set out earlier who have been in employment for ten years or more should be paid salaries on the footing of being permanent and those who have completed two years of employment should be paid salaries on the footing of being semi-permanent. No payment needs to be made towards arrears of salary or allowance at this stage. We have no option except to make this order. The State is given a period of six weeks from today to collect whatever information that is necessary and to put the same on an affidavit. it is clarified that this order will not in any way preclude any future and order being made for payment of arrears or allowance. We have no option except to make this order. The State is given a period of six weeks from today to collect whatever information that is necessary and to put the same on an affidavit. it is clarified that this order will not in any way preclude any future and order being made for payment of arrears or allowance. The respondents may file their affidavits in reply, if any, within two weeks thereafter. The appeal to be placed on board after Summer Vacation 1992. The payment of salary on the aforesaid footing may be made from 1.11.1991." The last line of this order was deleted by another order dated 16.1.92. 9. While deciding another batch of writ petitions (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1878/86 Bhartiya Van Vibhag Karmchari Sangh v. State of Rajasthan & others) this Court on 22.8.88 (Principal seat at Jodhpur) gave general directions for giving effect to the provisions of the standing orders in cases of all employees. The Division Bench gave the following directions:- "Therefore, we allow the writ petitions and direct the respondents to examine the cases or large number of employees working in the Forest Department and regularise their services in terms of the Certified Standing Orders produced on record as Exhibit-R.5. It should be done within a period of six months from today. The parties are left to bear their own costs." 10. After the decision of Supreme Court dated 14.3.89 dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government in Mohan Singh's case, the State Government issued Notification No.F (30) Karmik/Ka-II/88 dated 18.1.89 and amended the existing Rajasthan PWD (B&R) including Gardents, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work-charged Employees' Service Rules and changed the nomenclature of Rules. With effect from 18.1.89 these Rules are known as the Rajasthan PWD (B&R) including Gardents, Irrigation, Water Works, Ayurvedic Department and Forest Department (Except Departmental Operational Circle) Work-charged Employees' Service Rules, 1964. Consequential amendments have also been made in Rule 1(2), Rule 2(c), which contains definition of the term employee, Rule 4(1) and some other Rules. With effect from 18.1.89 these Rules are known as the Rajasthan PWD (B&R) including Gardents, Irrigation, Water Works, Ayurvedic Department and Forest Department (Except Departmental Operational Circle) Work-charged Employees' Service Rules, 1964. Consequential amendments have also been made in Rule 1(2), Rule 2(c), which contains definition of the term employee, Rule 4(1) and some other Rules. It can thus be said that till 18.1.89 the employees of the Forest Department will be treated as governed by the provisions of the Forest Department Work-charged Employees' Standing Orders, 1973 which has been treated as effective from 7.5.73 and after 18.1.89 the privisions of 1964 Rules shall govern the service conditions of the work-charged employees of the Forest Department except those who are engaged in the Departmental Operational Circle. Para 3 (Gha) of the Standing Orders relate to semi permanent employees, whereas Rule 3 of 1964 Rules also deal with semi permanent employees. Both these provisions are quoted below:- an style='font-family:Ankit' HINDI MATTER /b/spanRule 3. "Categorisation (1) Work charged employees (including the regular Technical Staff of Water Works Department) for the purpose of these rules, shall be divided into the following three categories : (i) Permanent status. (ii) Semi Permanent status, and (iii) Casual. Provided however, that nothing in these rules shall entitle any work charged employees categorised permanent or semi-permanent to claim the status or benefit of permanency or semi permanency to which a regular Government employee is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules. (2) Employees, who have been in service for ten years of 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. (3) Employees in continuous service for two years or more, except those covered by sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (4) No employee shall acquire the status specified in sub rules (2) and (3) without the prior sanction of the Competent Authority, as may be notified by the Head of the Department from time to time." A look at the two provisions show that the language used in Clause 3(Gha) of the -Standing Orders and Rule 3(3), are pari materia. (4) No employee shall acquire the status specified in sub rules (2) and (3) without the prior sanction of the Competent Authority, as may be notified by the Head of the Department from time to time." A look at the two provisions show that the language used in Clause 3(Gha) of the -Standing Orders and Rule 3(3), are pari materia. Rule 3 became subject matter of interpretation before this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1319/87 Kamal Kumar & 8 others v. State decided on 19.4.88 at Jaipur Bench. After making reference to the relevant rules and particularly Rule 3(3) of 1964 Rules, the Division Bench held as under:- "We have referred to the sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 above and at the cost of repetition it may further be said that any work charged employee in continuous service for two years or more, except those covered by sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work charged employee. There is nothing in the rule that he is entitled to the conferement of the aforesaid status only on the post which he was initially appointed, all that is required is that he must have continuous service for two years or more." 11. In Vinod Kumar v. State, 1991 (S) WLR 192 , this Court had considered a submission made on behalf of the State that in the absence of sanctioned post a work charged employee cannot be given the status of semi permanent employee. While rejecting this argument, the Court held:- "Thus, it is very clear in the scheme of rules itself that in the work charged services all employees enter as a casual worker and,once an employee completes two years' period, he is eligible for the status of semi permanent and on completion of ten years' service he is eligible for permanent status as work charged employee. The only embargo provided under sub rules (2), and (3) is that the record of service in the opinion of the competent authority must be satisfactory. The only embargo provided under sub rules (2), and (3) is that the record of service in the opinion of the competent authority must be satisfactory. Therefore, all those persons appointed as work charged employees on completion of two years are entitled for semi permanent status subject to the only condition that their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory and similarly all those employees who have completed ten years of service are entitled for the permanent status in case their record of service in the opinion of competent authority is satisfactory. The conferment of semi permanent and/or permanent status as a work charged employee has, therefore, no concern whatsoever with the number of sanctioned posts because the posts are already sanctioned against which the persons are continuing. It is arbitrary, erroneous and wholly irrelevant consideration to say that merely because a person is working as a casual worker, in case semi permanent status/permanent status is to be conferred upon them, there must be a further sanction of that very post against which he is to be continued with semi permanent status." (underlining is mine) 12. Similar argument about the requirement of sanctioned post was considered by A.K. Mathur, J. at length in Om Prakash Meghwal v. State, 1991 (S) WLR 299 . Mathur, J. took note of the clarification added by the Government vide DOP Notification No. F.5(11) DOP (A-II)/74 dated 19.8.80 whereby requirement of availability of sanctioned post was made essential. Mathur, J. made reference to the decisions of this Court in Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh v. State, decided on 21.5.87 as well as decisions of the Division Bench in Kamal Kumar's case (supra) and of Single Bench in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) and then held: "It is true that the Apex Court was conscious of the human agony of these daily rated/wages bread earners who have continued in service for considerably long time and they are still on the paltry sum without any security of the job. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also conscious of the financial constraints of the State Governments therefore, they gave a phased direction. But after the issuance of this circular dated 1.11.85 the State Government remained silent and no further orders in this regard have been issued redressing the agony of these daily rated employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also conscious of the financial constraints of the State Governments therefore, they gave a phased direction. But after the issuance of this circular dated 1.11.85 the State Government remained silent and no further orders in this regard have been issued redressing the agony of these daily rated employees. If the Government was conscious enough then perhaps it would have issued the order in line issued on 1.11.85. I am also conscious of the financial constraints of the State Government, but at the same time I cannot ignore the impact of Chapter IV of the Constitution and the decision delivered by their Lordship of the Supreme Court referred to above. The provision of Rule 3 (2) has already been interpreted by the Division Bench at the Jaipur Bench of this Court but this clarification which has been given below the rule was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench. Even if its clarification had been brought to the notice ,of Division Bench the interpretation would not have been different as the clarification which has been issued by the authorities in exercise of their administrative power would not override Statutory Rules. According to the view taken by the Division Bench it is clear that the incumbents after having completed 10 years of service and their work being found satisfactory are entitled to be treated as permanent and likewise those incumbents who have completed two years of service with satisfactory record of service are entitled to be treated as semi-permanent. It is true that under sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 a positive order has to be passed by the competent authority and if the competent authority has been conscious enough and has realised the aspirations of these lowly paid employees then perhaps they would have issued the further circular in line with circular issued on 1.11.85. But no such realisation has been down upon the Government and this anguish has been ventilated before this Court." 13. In Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Kamgar Sangh v. JDA, 1992 (1) WLC 21 , the Court was concerned with the employees of JDA which had passed Standing Order No.15 adopting the Work Charged Service Rules of 1964. But no such realisation has been down upon the Government and this anguish has been ventilated before this Court." 13. In Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Kamgar Sangh v. JDA, 1992 (1) WLC 21 , the Court was concerned with the employees of JDA which had passed Standing Order No.15 adopting the Work Charged Service Rules of 1964. After making reference to the Rules, the Court observed:- "A perusal of the standing order along with provisions contained in Rule 3 clearly goes to show that once an employee has completed two years service he becomes eligible to be given the status of semi permanent employee. It is the oblication of the competent authority to take action for grant of status of semi permanency to such employee. Can it be said that marely because the competent authority has failed to take an action within a reasonable time, after completion of two years service by employee, for grant of semi permanent status to him, the employee concerned can be deprived of this right. If this interpretation advanced by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner was to be accepted it will lead to anomalous results and will leave it to the absolute discretion of the employer to grant semi permanent status to an employee or not to grant such status to him. It will then be left to the unpredictable and uncertain discretion of the employer to take action. One Head of the Department may be prompt in taking decision while other may not be so prompt or may for any extraneous reason delay the passing of order. Every statute has to be interpreted in a manner so that anamolous results are avoided. This is one of the fundamental rules of interpretation of statutes. In my opinion on a proper interpretation of rule 3 it has to be held once an employee completes two years satisfactory service he not only becomes .......(illegible) employer is under an obligation to pass appropriate order for this purpose." 14. In Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karamchari Sangh v. State, 1992(1) WLC 26 , the Court took notice of the Government's decision to extend the benefit of work charged service Rules to the employees of the Command Area Development Department. In Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karamchari Sangh v. State, 1992(1) WLC 26 , the Court took notice of the Government's decision to extend the benefit of work charged service Rules to the employees of the Command Area Development Department. Notice was then taken of the various decisions of Supreme Court rendered in the context of the principal of equal pay for equal work as well as the decisions of this Court in Mohan Singh v. State (supra), Vinod Kumar's case (supra) and Om Prakash Meghwal's case (supra) and it was held that employees who have completed two years service have a right to be declared semi permanent in terms of Rule 3(3) of the Rules. The order passed by the Supreme Court on 29.10.91 in the contempt petition filed by the employees in relation to the case of Mohan Singh also shows that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have directed that all such employees who have completed 10 years' service and two years' service, should be paid salaries on the footing of being permanent and semi permanent employees. The direction given by the Supreme Court reads thus:- "In order to leave no room for grievance, we direct that at this stage of such employees, as we have set out earlier who have been in employment for ten years or more, should be paid salaries on the footing of being permanent and those who have completed 2 years of employment should be paid salaries on the footing of being semi permanent." 15. From the above referred decisions it is crystal dear that the Apex Court as well as this Court have after interpreting the scheme of Rules and the Standing Orders held that neither the Standing Orders nor the Rules contain any requirement that there should be separate sanction of the posts before a work charged employee can be given the status or semi permanent employee after completion of two years' service. In Om Prakash Meghwal's case this Court has taken note of the clarification issued by the Government in DOP vide Notification dated 19.8.80 and held that when rules do not contain requirement of availability of vacant posts, clarification issued by the Government cannot be construed as an emendment in the Rules and the same will have to be treated as ultra vires to the provisions of the Rules. In Mahavir Prasad v. State, 1994(1) WLC 270 , this Court has examined at length the question of the executive power of the Government to add additional condition of eligibility for the purposes of recruitment to public service. After making reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur, AIR 1972 SC 1546 , S.C. Sachdeva v. Union of India, (1980) A SCC 562 ; C.C. Padmanabhan v. Director of Public Instruction & others, 1980(2) SLR 599 , C.L. Verma v. State of MP, (1989) Suppl (2) SCC 437 , Bindeshwari Ram v. State of Bihar, (1989) 4 SCC 465 , N.T. Bevin Kutty v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, AIR 1990 SC 1223 , the Court has held that Government cannot by administrative orders or instructions make addition to statutory instructions nor can it modify or vary the provisions contained in Statute. The Court further held that where qualifications are prescribed in the Rules, it is not open to the Government to issue executive instructions or administrative orders superseding or amending those qualifications. 16. In so far as this case is concerned, it is clear that the respondents have denied the status of semi permanency to the petitioners Bhairon Singh and Sharafat Khan without any legal justification. In the light of the judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1319/87 Kamal Kumar & others v. State, decided on 19.4.88 , Vinod Kumar v. State, 1991 WLR 192 , Om Prakash Meghwal v. State, 1991 WLR 299 and other cases of this Court, it must be held that the action of respondents in denying the status of semi permanent employee to the petitioners has resulted in denial of legal right available to them and has also resulted in discrimination qua them. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pass order declaring the petitioners as semi permanent employees in the work charged establishment with effect from the date of completion of two years of service. They are also directed to give all those benefits to the petitioners which are admissible to a semi permanent employee. These benefits should be given to them with effect from the date they are treated as having completed two years satisfactory service. They are also directed to give all those benefits to the petitioners which are admissible to a semi permanent employee. These benefits should be given to them with effect from the date they are treated as having completed two years satisfactory service. Arrears payable to the petitioners on account of the grant of benefit of semi permanency shall be so paid to them within six months of the submission of certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents shall have to pay interest to the petitioners at the rate of 12% with effect from the expiry of the period of six months. Parties shall bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******