Honble MADAN, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. (2). The petitioner, who is a work-charged employee of the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that he was initially appointed as Beldar in the Irrigation Department w.e.f. 1.5.1988 in the office of Respondent No.2 on daily wage basis @ 22/- per day tillFebruary, 1989 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated by a verbal order without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Respondents. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Respondents, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2679/89, titled : Shiv Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan on 24.1.1991 before this Court while allowing the above mentioned writpetition observed as under:- ``In the result, the writ petition is accepted and the verbal termination order dated 28.2.1989, is set aside. The petitioner shall be treated regular in service from 28.2.1989. The Petitioner shall also be entitled for the back wages. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioner should be re-instated in service forthwith. (3). In pursuance of the Order dated 24.1.1991, the Petitioner was re-instated back in service and since then he is continuously working on the said post and he has completed more than five years of continuous service. (4). Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended at the bar that the Peti-tioner is working against the permanent post of Beldar since his initial appointment i.e. 1.5.1988, but he is not being given the regular pay-scale of Beldar. It has further been contended that there is no difference in nature of duties being performed by the Petitioner and that of a regularly appointed Beldar. The Petitioner has placed various documents on the record, which goes to show that the Petitioner has been discharging his duties as a work-charged employee of the Respondent-Department, the petitioner had finally sent a Notice for Demand of justice, which was served upon the Respondent-Department through his counsel on 8th February, 1993. It is only thereafter, the Petitioner has been constrained to file the presentWrit Petition. (5). It is only thereafter, the Petitioner has been constrained to file the presentWrit Petition. (5). The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of having rendered his services continuously with effect from 1st May, 1988 till date, his services have not been regularized nor he has been declared semi-permanent even on completion of five years of satisfactory service in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Work-Char-ged Service Rules of 1964 (for short `the Rules 1964) and the consequential benefits and privileges etc., which are admissible to the work-charged employees have also not been provided to him. (6). The Respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the contentions of the Petitioner on the grounds inter-alia that the Petitioner had notcompleted 5 years of continuous service. The Respondents have further contended in their reply to the Writ Petition that the petition joined the department only 28.9.1992 after the order passed in this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2679/89 on 24.1.1991, which was filed by the Petitioner. The Respondents have, however, not disputed the fact that they have been taking the benefit of the services of thePetitioner from time to time with intermittent breaks in service, w.e.f. 1.5.1988 from which date the Petitioner has been regularly discharging his duties in the office of Respondent No.2. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the pleadings of the parties. (8). At the outset, I deem it appropriate to refer to Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1964, which specifically provides that the employees who have been continuous service for two years or more except those covered by sub-section (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 Com-petent Authority is satisfactory. (9). Prima facie I am of the opinion that since the petitioner had already rendered continuous service with Respondent w.e.f. the year 1989 as work-charged employee, he was entitled to be considered for being conferred with semi-perma nent status as work-charged employee in accordance with the aforesaid rules, whichhas been violated by the Respondents. (10). (9). Prima facie I am of the opinion that since the petitioner had already rendered continuous service with Respondent w.e.f. the year 1989 as work-charged employee, he was entitled to be considered for being conferred with semi-perma nent status as work-charged employee in accordance with the aforesaid rules, whichhas been violated by the Respondents. (10). From the perusal of the documents as well as the reply filed by the Respondent to the Writ Petition, it has not been disputed that the Petitioner has rendered continuous service with the Respondents as a work-charged employee regularly w.e.f. the year 1988. (11). Consequently, I allow this Writ Petition and the Respondents are accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioner for being declared as semi-permanent work-charged employee (Beldar) in accordance with the Rules of 1964. The Respondents are further directed to extend all the consequential benefits as admissible to a semi-permanent employee of the Irrigation Department. (12). The Respondents are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions positively witin a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of this Order. Parties are left to bear their own cost.