JUDGMENT 1. - 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 Helper in the Irrigation Department with effect from 1.7.1987 in the office of Respondent No. 2 on daily wage basis @ Rs. 14/- per day and till January, 1989, the petitioner continued to work as a daily wager and subsequently his designation was changed as Beldar. The petitioner has placed various documents on the record which go to show that the petitioner has been discharging his duties as a work-charged employee of the respondent. Alongwith his rejoinder, the petitioner has filed a document vide (Annexure-9) dated 11.2.1994, in respect of his contention which fortifies the fact that the petitioner has been discharging his duties in the office of the respondent as full time employee. Failing to elicit any response from the respondent, the petitioner had finally sent a notice for demand of justice which has served upon the respondent through his counsel, on 10th January, 1992. It is only thereafter, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of having rendered his services continuously with effect from July, 1987, till date his services have not been regularised nor he has been declared semi-permanent even on completion of two years of satisfactory service in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Work-charged Service Rules of 1964 (for short ''the Rules'') and the consequential benefits and privileges etc., which are admissible to the work- charged employees have also not been provided to him. 4. It has further been contended by the petitioner that the respondents have on the contrary reduced the minimum wages of the petitioner from Rs. 14/- to Rs. 8.65 per day with effect from February, 1989 in gross violation of the Rules and it also amounts to unfair labour practice. 5. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the contention of the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner had worked only for two months in the year 1987 on a fixed remuneration and thereafter in the year 1988 as well he worked only for a couple of months. 5. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the contention of the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner had worked only for two months in the year 1987 on a fixed remuneration and thereafter in the year 1988 as well he worked only for a couple of months. The respondents have, however, not disputed the fact that they have been taking the benefit of the service of the petitioner from time to time with intermittent breaks, as such, from 15.6.1988 to 15.9.1988 and again in the year 1989 on part-time basis with effect from 6.2.1989, from which date the petitioner has been regularly discharging his duties in the office of respondent No. 2. 6. 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. 7. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to refer to Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1964 which specifically provides that the employees who have been in 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 Competent Authority, is satisfactory. 8. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner had already rendered continuous service with respondent with effect from the year 1989 as work-charged employee, he was entitled to be considered for being conferred with semi-permanent status as a work-charged employee in accordance with the aforesaid rules which has been violated by the respondents. 9. 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 with effect from the year 1989. 10. Consequently, I allow his 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. 11. 10. Consequently, I allow his 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. 11. The respondents are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions positively within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the submission of the certified copy of the order.The parties are directed to bear their own cost.Petition allowed. *******