JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to regularise his service under Work Charge Service Rules, 1964 (for short the Rules of 1964') on the post of Helper from the date when he had completed two years continuous service from his initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he was initially appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Helper on 1.8.1990 in Public Health & Engineering Department (For short `the PHED') and his services were regularised vide order dated 13.6.1995 w.e.f. 1.1.1995 by declaring him semi-permanent on the post of Beldar. The educational qualification prescribed for the post of Helper is 8th Class and the petitioner fulfills the above condition. Duties of Beldar and Helper are almost same and there is a difference only of pay in both the posts. The State Government after considering the above position regarding the post of Helper and Beldar, vide order dated 24.5.96, and corrigendum letter dated 10.6.96, directed to regularise the services of Beldar as Helper if such person possesses requisite qualification. Copy of the aforesaid order and corrigendum were circulated 5 amongst all the offices. An order dated 9.12.1996 has been issued under the signatures of Superintending Engineer, PHED, Circle Churu by which the work-charge employees who were wrongly regularised as Beldar instead of Helper, were converted as Helper w.e.f. 1.1.1995, the date when they were declared semi-permanent as Beldar. 3. On 4.3.1998, the State Government issued an order dated 4.3.1998 to the effect that a work charge employee who has completed continuous satisfactory service of more than two years or 10 years as the case may be, shall be regularized/declared as Semi-permanent or permanent after completion of two years or 10 years continuous service. On 17.2.2003, a circular to this effect was also issued. Seniority position of the work charge employee was determined by the respondents District-wise. The persons who are junior to the present petitioner, namely; Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Mr. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. Rameshwar Lal, have been declared semi-permanent with effect from the date when they have completed two years continuous service but the petitioner has been deprived of the same. The petitioner repeatedly submitted representations to the respondents but with no result. Ultimately the petitioner sent a legal notice but that was also with no result. 4. Mahesh Kumar and Mr. Rameshwar Lal, have been declared semi-permanent with effect from the date when they have completed two years continuous service but the petitioner has been deprived of the same. The petitioner repeatedly submitted representations to the respondents but with no result. Ultimately the petitioner sent a legal notice but that was also with no result. 4. Being aggrieved with the above inactions on the part of the respondents, the present petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In rebuttal the respondents have filed a detailed reply and controverted the facts as raised by the petitioner as of alternative remedy. The respondents in their reply have specifically mentioned that whenever the posts of Assistants/Helpers are created in Circle Sikar, the petitioner will be given the appointment from the post of Beldar to the post of Assistant/Helper accordingly but until or unless the posts are not created, it is not possible to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant/Helper in the Department. 6. The petitioner also filed rejoinder to the reply and reiterated the facts which he mentioned in the writ petition. 7. Mr. Gupta, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate made a statement at Bar that as and when the post of Helper is sanctioned by the respondents, the services of the petitioner will be regularised on the post of Helper from his date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. 8. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Om Prakash Meghwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in WLR 1991 (Rajasthan) 299 the operative portion of which is reproduced here-in-below : "Therefore, in this view of the matter, I hold that the incumbents who have completed 10 years of service or more till this date may be declared permanent if their record is satisfactory and those incumbents who have completed two years service or more and their record is satisfactory, may also be given the semi-permanent status and other incumbents, who have completed less than two years of service may be progressively regularized. This writ petition alongwith the 25 writ petitions mentioned in Schedule appended with this Judgment accordingly disposed of." 9. This writ petition alongwith the 25 writ petitions mentioned in Schedule appended with this Judgment accordingly disposed of." 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me as also the Judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. A bare perusal of the facts of the above case, as also facts of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner clearly reveal that for grant of permanent and semi-permanent status, availability of sanctioned post is not necessary but the concerned employee must have completed requisite satisfactory service. 11. In view of the order dated 4.3.1998 issued by the State Government as also the order passed in Om Prakash Meghwal's case (supra), I, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Helper regarding regularising of services, immediately upon/as and when, posts of Helper are created by the respondent department. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition disposed of as above. *******