Honble MADAN, J.–The case of the petitioner in short is that he was initially appointed on work charge basis in the department of P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads) State of Rajasthan, Jaipur w.e.f. 1.9.86 in the fixed pay scale of Rs. 400/- per month (consolidated). Thereafter, although no extension orders were issued in his favour but the continued to work on work charge basis w.e.f. 1.9.86 to 31st March 1987. The petitioner has further contended that despite the fact that he continuously discharged his duties as Store Munshi during the aforesaid period, he was not paid any wages by the respondents for the said period. This fact is borne out from the certificate dated 11.4.90 (Annexure-12) on the record. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in accor- dance with the rule 3 of the Rajasthan Work Charge Employees Service Rules 1964 for short, ``the rules of 64. Since the petitioner had completed his two years of service w.e.f. 1.9.86 to September, 1988 he was entitled to be conferred Semi permanent status on the aforesaid post. The respondents have in violation of the said Rule, not considered the eligibility of the petitioner for being declared semi- permanent. Sub Rule 4 of the Rule 3 provides inter alia :– ``Employees in continuous service for two years or from except those covered by sub rule (1) shall be eligible for the status of semi-permanent work charged employees or of semi- permanent regular Technical staff, provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (2). The petitioner has further contended that there was no justification for the respondents not to have paid the service benefits including the arrears of salary/wages for which he was entitled for having worked for more than two years in accordance with the rules and the said action of the respondents is actually illegal and contrary to rules being in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 & 300(A) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has consequently sought direction from this court to declare him semi-permanent w.e.f. 1.9.88 and further to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Store Munshi or any other equivalent post on the basis of the Rules. (3). The petitioner has consequently sought direction from this court to declare him semi-permanent w.e.f. 1.9.88 and further to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Store Munshi or any other equivalent post on the basis of the Rules. (3). The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner have been controverted by Shri Farooq learned counsel for the respondent on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner continued to work only for the period 1.10.86 to 31.3.87 vide (Annexure-1) and no extension was given to him beyond the said period although he continued to discharge his duties as Store Munshi till 31st March, 1990 and this fact is borne out from Annexure-12 on the record dated 16th April, 1990. (4). Admittedly, there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner did not discharge his duties on the aforesaid post beyond 31st March, 1990. Prima-facie, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner continued to discharge his duties on the post of Store Munshi w.e.f. 1.9.86 till 31st March, 1990, he is entitled for the payment of arrears due on account of salary/wages including any other benefits which may be admissible to him as per rules. Since there is no document on the record to justify the contentions of petitioner that he was either taken-back on duty or continued to work beyond the aforesaid period, he can neither be taken back on duty nor be paid any emoluments beyond the aforesaid period i.e. March 1990. (5). During the course of hearing the petitioner who is himself present in court has stated on being asked by this court as to whether he would like to confine to the relief sought for in this writ petition to the payment of salary dues and other consequential benefits upto March, 1990 and would not claim the relief of reinstatement in lieu of his subsequent appointment as L.D.C. in the P.W.D. of this State w.e.f. 1.11.95, he has stated that he would confine himself to the payment of relief of arrears of salary for the period in dispute only and is prepared to forego other reliefs falling in the latter category. It has been brought to the notice of this court that subsequent to the demise of his father the petitioner was a appoin- ted as L.D.C. with P.W.D. of the State w.e.f. 1.11.95 under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of the Government Servant (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 and has been discharging his duties on the said post ever since then. (6). As a result of the above discussion the writ petition is partly allowed with the direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner semi permanent as Store Munshi in accordance with the rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 since he had completed two years service on the said post as on 1st September, 1988 and thereafter release the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits as admissible to the petitioner in the regular pay scale of Store Munshi under the rules for the period in dispute. The question regarding admissibility of relief of reinstate- ment doesnt arise since the petitioner has not pressed and is also not entitled for the same as he has already sought alternative employment in the same Department since 1995. (7). The writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of with above directions.