JUDGEMENT Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J. 1. We shall first take up C.W.J.C. No. 12187 of 1999. This writ petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 21.5.1998(Annexure-4), as well as the order dated 14.10.1999 (Annexure-7), whereby the services of the Petitioner as work-charged employee was dispensed with 2. According to the writ petition, the Petitioner was appointed as a muster-roll typist in the office of Respondent No. 3 with effect from 16.7.1987, by office order No. 32, dated 17.7.1987. The Petitioner was absorbed as such by office order No. 57, dated 11.8.1989. It is further stated in the writ petition that the Petitioner figured in the list of work-charged employees at serial No. 2, dated 11.8.1994. He was suddenly served with Memo No. 146 E.C., dated 21.5.1998, and impugned herein, whereby his services were dispensed with leading to C.W.J.C. No. 4023 of 1999. The same was disposed of by order dated 25.8.1999, whereby Respondent No. 2 was directed to consider and dispose of the Petitioners grievance by a reasoned order. In compliance of the order of this Court, Respondent No. 2 has disposed of the Petitioners representation by an exhaustive order and has rejected his claim. 3. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the Petitioner had last worked till 21.5.1998. Furthermore according to the Petitioners own case, he had last worked as work-charged employee. We are of the view that a work-charged employee has no enforceable right for continuance in service, let alone permanent absorption. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed 4. We now take up C.W.J.C. No. 10924 of 2000. The facts and circumstances of C.W.J.C. No. 10924 of 2000, are identical, though with minor variation of facts which are inconsequential in the present context. This writ petition is dismissed for the reasons assigned hereinabove 5. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.