JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the above named petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with Work-Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964. The petitioner who was appointed as work-charge employee having been sponsored from the Employment Exchange and after taking into consideration his candidature by the Selection Committee and on the recommendations of the said Committee, was appointed as Helper Gr. II on 12.5.1981 and in the said Order his name was mentioned at serial No. 11 in the list of the appointees. 2. It has been contended in the writ petition that looking to the qualifications of the petitioner he was deployed to discharge the duties of Store Munshi since he was eligible to hold this post under the Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1964"). It has been further contended in the writ petition that without taking into consideration actual working of the petitioner, he was declared semi-permanent under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 w.e.f. 19.5.1983 and to this effect an order was issued by respondent No. 2, the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D., Bharatpur belatedly on 15.12.1987. According to this order, the petitioner was declared semi-permanend as Helper Gr. II which was contrary to the Rules of 1964. 3. Sub-rule (3) of the Rules of 1964 provides that a person who discharges the duties on the post continuously for a period of 2 years, is entitled to be declared semi-permanent against that post on which he was actually working on the expiry of two years period which has not been done in the present case. It has been further stated in the petition that certain orders were issued by the office of the respondent on 27.4.84, 9.4.85, 29.2.86, 2.5.86, 21.6.86 and 1.11.88 vide Annexures 1 to 6 respectively which reveal that the petitioner was actually working as Store Munshi; whereas he was appointed as a Helper Gr. II and since the petitioner was throughout discharging his duties as Store Munshi, he was fully eligible to hold the said post and should have been confirmed on that post. II and since the petitioner was throughout discharging his duties as Store Munshi, he was fully eligible to hold the said post and should have been confirmed on that post. It has been further stated in the writ petition that respondent No. 1, Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Jaipur had issued a circular dated 9.11.85 stating therein that the persons who had completed two years of service as on 1.4.85 shall be declared semi-permanent on the post on which they were actually working. In view of the said circular an order was earlier passed on 4.12.87 by which two persons were declared semi-permanent as Helper Cr. II. When this fact came to their notice, the order was revised and they were made semi-permanent w.e.f. 1.4.1985 in the grade of 490-840 vide order dated 4.7.1988 as Store Munshies. It has been contended by the petitioner that on the ground of parity the case of the petitioner should have been treated similarly as of the said employees who were similarly placed in the matter of discharge of their duties like the petitioner since they were confirmed Store Munshies though appointed as Helper Gr. II, as referred to above. The petitioner has thus been discriminated. 4. It has been further contended that when the petitioner's request was not conceded by the department, he at last served a notice for demand of justice, dated 4.4.1989 alongwith one Shri Vishnu Kumar Sharma as a consequence of which said Shri Vishnu Kumar Sharma was appointed as Store Munshi, whereas the petitioner was ignored for the reasons best known to the Authorities. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties as a Store Munshi from the date of his initial appointment who has been denied emoluments on that post and that the principle of equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated and the petitioner has been discriminated in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It will be pertinent to refer to Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:- "39(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;" It was been further contended by the petitioner that thus a valuable right of the petitioner which had accrued to him in view of the Constitutional guarantee and safe-guards under above referred provisions of the Constitution, has not only been violated but the petitioner has also been deprived of the same in arbitrary and illegal manner and that the petitioner has been left with no other alternative but to move this court by way of this writ petition. 5. In reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents it has been contended that the petitioner has all along been working as Helper Gr. II and that he had never objected against his being posted, paid and treated as Helper Gr. II and that since he had completed two years of service as Helper Gr. II, so under rules he was declared semi-permanent as Helper Gr. II w.e.f.195.1983. After that also he had not objected to his being treated and paid as Helper Gr. II which goes to show that infact the petitioner had been working as Helper Gr. II only and this claim for the post of Store Munshi is only an afterthought. It has been further contended in the reply that the petitioner neither before the issuance of these orders nor till 1989 ever objected to his being treated and paid as Helper Gr. II because he was actually working as Helper Gr. II and was being paid accordingly. The claim of the petitioner is also suffering from the vice of latches because according to him his claim is for the post of Store Munshi right from the year 1981 when he was infact appointed as Helper Gr. II. It has been further stated in the reply that the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Shri Avdesh Kumar Saxena and Shri Satya Prakash Gupta who had been initially appointed on Muster-roll as Munshies and that his case cannot be equated with the said persons who were made semi-permanent on the post of Store Munshies earlier to the petitioner. The petitioner is not further entitled to any relief from this court on the ground that he has not impleaded the above referred persons as parties to the writ petition. 6. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, the above allegations have been controverted on the ground that the petitioner has been making his request and representations to the concerned authorities through-out that since the petitioner was discharging his duties of the post of Store Munshi for a continuously long spell of time his case may be considered for regularisation on the post of Store Munshi and he has placed all the relevant documents which were issued to, him from time to time which clearly show that he was working for all practical purposes as Store Munshi but since he was designated as Helper Gr. II, no heed was paid to his request and as a matter of fact the petitioner having been left with no option and in order to earn his livelihood, he has been forced to work as Helper Gr. II notwithstanding the arbitrary conditions of working. 7. During the course of hearing it was contended by Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 which provides that the employees who have been in continuous service for a period of two years and who were not covered by sub-rule (1) shall be eligible for being treated as semi-permanent work-charge employees looking to their service record and satisfactory performance of duties. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also finds support from the Circular issued by the office of Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Jaipur which states that with regard to the declaration of the employee who is working as on 1.4.1985 and has completed two years of continuous service, consideration should be made with regard to the actual working. On the strength of the aforesaid rule and the Circular, as referred to above, it was contended by Shri Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the paramount consideration is the duties which are being discharged by an employee irrespective of the designation and since the petitioner has been throughout discharging the duties of Store Munshi notwithstanding his designation as Helper Gr. II, he should have been paid emoluments of the post of Store Munshi on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' with all consequential benefits which have legitimately accrued in favour of the petitioner from the due date. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Helper Gr. II under Work Charge Service Rules vide order dated 12.5.81 and since he was qualified for appointment on the post of Store Munshi, he was discharging his duties as Store Munshi right from the date of his initial appointment. The requisite educational qualification required for the said post is minimum matriculation, whereas the petitioner is a graduate from the University or Rajasthan and that the semi-permanent status under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, for the post of Store Munshi should have been given to the petitioner from the date he had completed two years of service with all consequential benefits. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCC 361 , A.S. Chauhan Vs. R.S.E.B. & Anr., 1993 WLC (2) 681 , Naga Ram Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 1992 (S) Raj. WLR 351 and Smt. Gulab & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1990 (1) RLR 523 . 8. The above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by Shri Paker Farooq, learned Dy. G. A. for the respondents on the ground that since the petitioner was appointed as Helper Gr. II, he is not entitled for the relief, since he was not designated as Store Munshi and it was on the sweet will and option of the petitioner that he discharged his duties as a Store Munshi and, therefore, the question of discrimination does not arise and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He has further contended that the basic concept for consideration of this Court is the post on which a person has been appointed and not the duties which have been actually discharged by the person as that would not by itself entitle the person for the benefits admissible to the said post. He has further contended that the basic concept for consideration of this Court is the post on which a person has been appointed and not the duties which have been actually discharged by the person as that would not by itself entitle the person for the benefits admissible to the said post. Since the petitioner was a work charge employee and was declared semi-permanent as a Helper Gr. II, he could not be considered for appointment as Store Munshi notwithstanding the fact that he had actually discharged his duties as a Store Munshi. It was further contended by Shri Paker Farooq that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed on the ground of delay and laches. 9. In the matter of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State (supra) the Apex Court while dealing with the case concerning regularisation of the daily rated workers who had served with that department for a long spell of time with artificial breaks in service, held that : "practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different post is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications." 10. In the matter of A.S. Chauhan Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and another, (supra) it was held by this Court that the delay by itself is not a ground which disentitles a petitioner to seek relief from the High Court. Delay accompanied by negligence amounts to laches and that can be a ground for High Court to decline to entertain in a writ petition. The rational of this approach is that in large number of cases rights of the parties get settled with passage of time and the Court by issue of writ will be doing greater injustice if settled rights are unsettled. The rational of this approach is that in large number of cases rights of the parties get settled with passage of time and the Court by issue of writ will be doing greater injustice if settled rights are unsettled. It was further held by this court as under:- 'While dealing with an objection regarding delay and laches in filing of the petition, facts of each case will have to be considered independently and no strait jacket formula can be applied for entertaining or for refusing to entertain a petition filed after lapse of some time". 10A. In M/s. Tilokchand Motichand and others Vs. H. B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay and another, AIR 1970 SC 898 the Apex Court has held as under : "Utmost expedition is the sine qua non for such claims. The party aggrieved must explain satisfactorily all emblance of delay. No period can be indicated which may be regarded as the ultimate limit of action for that would be taking upon itself legislative functions. In England a period of six months has been provided statutorily, but that could be because there is no guaranteed remedy and the matter is one entirely of discretion. In India each case will have to be considered on its own facts. Avoidable delay affecting the merits of the claim, will disentitle a party to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction". 11. In the matter of Smt. Gulab & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) this court while dealing with the case of petitioners who had discharged their duties for over 3 years as class IV employees on daily wages basis in Medical & Health Department of State Govt. were held entitled for regularisation of the service as class IV employees and they were further held entitled for minimum of prescribed pay scale for class IV employees from the date of filing of the writ petition on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar posts discharging similar duties and were held entitled to the scale of pay and allowances revised from time to time for the said post. 12. In the matter of Naga Ram Choudhary Vs. 12. In the matter of Naga Ram Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & others (supra) this court while dealing with the matter pertaining interpretation of Rajasthan Subordinate Office Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 held that the petitioner who was appointed as Helper but discharging duties of L.D.C. (including Helper to LDC) for more than two years and was also eligible to the post of L.D.C. was held entitled to be fixed in the regular pay scale of L.D.C. 13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the contentions advanced at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing all the relevant documents tendered on the record, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner who was appointed as Helper Gr. II under Work Charge Service Rules vide order, dated 12.5.1981 and being qualified for appointment on the basis (sic post) of Store Munshti and having completed requisite period of more than two years of service which was required for declaring him Semi-permanent under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, should be given appointment as Store Munshi with all consequential benefits admissible to him in accordance with the Rules with effect from the due date, since he has been continuously discharging his duties of Store Munshi. I am further of the opinion that since the petitioner has been allowed to work for considerable length of time as a Store Munshi notwithstanding his appointment as a Helper Gr. II, it would be hard and harsh to deny to the petitioner the confirmation on the post of Store Munshi on the ground that since he has not been appointed as Store Munshi and has been working as helper Gr. II, he is not entitled for the emoluments and scale of Store Munshi. I am further of the opinion that the principle of laches is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner has been making his representations throughout to the respondents for appointment as a Store Munshi and having failed to get the relief or to get any reply from the department in response to his notice for demand of justice, dated 4.4.1989, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition soon thereafter in the year 1989 itself. Thus, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not be made to suffer only on the ground of mere technicalities and that substantial justice demands that the petitioner should be held entitled for the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. The respondents are accordingly directed to give appointment to the petitioner as a Store Munshi w.e.f. 15th December, 1987 when he was declared semi-permanent as a Helper Gr. II in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 of the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. The petitioner is further entitled to all the consequential benefits with retrospective effect i.e., 15.12.87 when he was declared semi-permanent as Helper Gr. II. 14. With the above directions this writ petition is allowed with no order as to cost.Petition allowed. *******