Honble CHOPRA, J. – This Special Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 11.4.1994. (2). The petitioner laid challenge to the action of the Government in not granting him employment on the death of his father who had died while in service of the State. The learned Single Judge after going through the matter and the relevant rules held that an eligible member of the family of the deceased employee is entitled to be appointed and consequently it was directed that the State of Rajasthan shall appoint the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. in Class III as that post is commensurate with the qualification and eligibility for such appointment. In sequence of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge respondent Lalit Singhvi has been appointed as Store Munshi on work charged basis. (3). The contention of Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the respondent is that the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called as the `Rules of 1975) have been made applicable mutatis mutandis to the work charged employees also and, therefore, the petitioner has to be given appointment as government employee and not on work charged basis. This circular militates against rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules of 1975. It was also argued that work charged rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and these Rules of 1975 have also been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, any one who is employed on work charged basis becomes a government servant. Our attention was drawn to rule 2 (d) of the Rules of 1975 which reads as under : ``2(d) ``Government Servant means person employed in connection with the affairs of the State. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that as the work charged employee is also employed in connection with the affairs of the State therefore he becomes a government servant and thus his/her dependent should also be employed as government servant. (4). These rules were not applicable to the work charged employee. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that as the work charged employee is also employed in connection with the affairs of the State therefore he becomes a government servant and thus his/her dependent should also be employed as government servant. (4). These rules were not applicable to the work charged employee. They were made applicable through the circular issued by the Government which reads as under : ``The Governor has been pleased to order that the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 issued vide this Department Notification No. F. 3 (6) Karmik (A-II)/75 dated 29.9.75 as amended from time to time shall apply mutais mutandis to the dependents of work charged employees of Public Works Department including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments for their appointment as work-charged employee. The above said work-charge Rules, nodoubt, have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India but it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a work charged employee is not holder of a post. He is only holder of status. If a work charged employee completes more than two years of satisfactory service then he be given semi-permanent status of a post and if he completes more than ten years satisfactory service then he be provided permanent status but he will not be the holder of the post and, therefore, he simply cannot be treated as government servant under these Ruled of 1964. If the Rules of 1975 are applicable to the work charged employees treating them as Government Servants then no fresh circular was needed to be issued in the year 1977. As per the circular issued by the Government on 22.2.1977 a work charged employee will be employed as work charged employee and not as government employee and, therefore, rule 5 read with rule 2 (d) of the Rules of 1975 are not applicable to the work charged employees. If this construction has to be to this notification issued by the Governor as canvassed by Mr. Mridul then every work charged employee has to be ipso facto treated as a government servant. If this construction has to be to this notification issued by the Governor as canvassed by Mr. Mridul then every work charged employee has to be ipso facto treated as a government servant. It is not the intention of the Rules of 1964 nor it is the intention of the Rules of 1975 or the Notification that has been issued by the Government and this Court has also in a decision given in review petition on 13.1.1994 has held that if the post of L.D.C. does not exist in the cadre of work charged employee then the persons who are doing clerical jobs have to be employed as Store Munshis and the respondent has already been appointed as Store Munshi. (5). Work charged employees are a class separate from the government servants and, therefore, as regards the employment of dependents of the deceased work charged employees they can be treated differently from the dependents of the government servants. They cannot be treated at par or equivalent to the government servants. (6). The Government has now issued Order No. F. 1(1) FD/Exp. III/93 dated 28.2.1994 whereby it has been ordered that ``the system of engaging workers under the work charged employees Service Rules, 1964 as well as under departmental standing orders stands discontinued completely with immediate effect and it is further ordered that ``the work charged employees, those engaged under standing orders will, in a phased manner, be absorbed as regular government employees. (7). It is, therefore, ordered that the services of the petitioner be also regularised on the post of L.D.C. or the Store Munshi as the case may be in view of the aforesaid circular of the State Government which has been issued on 28.2.1994. (8). The Special Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.