JUDGMENT 1. - At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the preparation of the paper book in the present case is dispensed with and the appeal is heard on merits.The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is in respect of claim of the petitioners that on completion of two years continues service on work charged establishment, the workmen on work change establishment are conferred with the status of semi-permanent status. The petitioners had completed two years service on 1.1.91. however they were conferred with the semi permanent status w.e.f. 3.1.95. This led to filing of the lo writ petition. The petitioner alleged that they had no adverse report throughout their careers, therefore, conferment of semi permanent status was automatic on completion of two years continuous service and cannot be postponed. The learned Single Judge though agreeing with this proposition, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that because semi-permanent status was granted to the petitioners from 1.1.1995 and not prior to this, it will have to be inferred that their previous record of service was not totally up to mark and because of the unsatisfactory service record prior to 1995 it will be treated as an implied reason for not granting semi-permanent status to the petitioners, when it become due. 2. With utmost respect, we are unable to subscribe to this view of the learned Single Judge about the assumption of fact concerning the unsatisfactory service of record. No inference can be drawn against the incumbents merely because of delayed conferment of semi permanent status where the Rules require conferment of semi permanent status on expiry of two years continuous service except in case where the service record of an employee, in the opinion of the competent authority is not satisfactory. It is did not follow automatically on completion of two years of continuous service by placing cogent material about unsatisfactory service record on record. By raising such presumption, the petition was dismissed in limine without issuing notice to the respondents and respondents plea was not before the Court. 3. The respondents have now filed the reply to the writ petition in this appeal. By raising such presumption, the petition was dismissed in limine without issuing notice to the respondents and respondents plea was not before the Court. 3. The respondents have now filed the reply to the writ petition in this appeal. In the reply, the respondents categorically admitted in para 4 of the reply that averments made in pare 4 of the appeal are not disputed on the basis of service book and personal files of continuous service and regular grade increments and work being satisfactory. Alongwith the reply, no 10 material has been placed to sustain the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge merely because of delayed recommendation for recognising semi permanent status of the petitioners, on completion of two years continuous service on work-charged establishment. No adverse inference could have been drawn against them which, in fact, turned out to be unfounded. 4. In view thereof, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set-aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and it is declared that the petitioners are entitled to be declared as Semi permanent with effect the date they completed two years of continuous service on work charged establishment and the consequences of acquisition of semi permanent under the Rules shall follow.No costs.Appeal-Judgment of Single Judge Set Aside. *******