JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for parties. 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner claiming that he be declared semipermanent on the post of Chowkidar with effect from 01.04.1980, the date on which he completed two years of service with respondent Department, as per Note 1 given below to the statement of Working Days (Annexure-1). 2. Shri Rajebdra Vaish, learned counsel for petitioner,has submitted that petitioner started working with respondent Department since 01.11.1977 on the post of Chowkodar, therefore, respondents ere under an obligation to promulgate the Standing Order issued in terms of Industrial Employment Standing Order Act, 1946, which would govern the service conditions of its employees. Respondents issued work charged services standing orders for the purpose by nomenclature of Standing Orders, 1973', but benefit thereof was not extended to the employees concerned for a long time. 3. This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2291/1985 titled as Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others , and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1319/1984 titled as Van Vibhag Employees Union v. Sate of Rajasthan and Others, decided by a common order dated 25.09.1986 , directed that service conditions of employees of Forest Department and approved by the state Government, vide letter dated 08.05.1973, and that the employees, said Shari Mihan Singh filed a contempt petition and at that stage the Government came into active motion judgement of this court is also reported in 1987 (1) RLR 702 . 4. Learned counsel foe petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court by its order dated 14.08.1989 affirmed the judgement of this court and granted four months time to the Government to give benefit thereof to the employees. At that stage, the respondent Forest Department undertook exercise of preparing work details of all its employees. Learned counsel submitted that in para 8 of the writ petition it has been categorically stated that he started working with respondent Department with effect from 01.11.1977 on the post of Chowkidar and thereafter he worked as Depot Moharir from July, 1987 but the respondents have granted him benefit of semi-permanency only on the post of Depot Moharir with effect from 01.04.1989. Learned counsel submitted that the statement of working days prepared in the case of petitioner pursuant to judgement of the Supreme Court, which is Annexure-1, clearly shows that his working with the respondent Department right from 01.11.1977 has been verified by the competent authority beneath the state of Working Days a Note has been given that he continuously worked on the post of Chowkidar from 01.11.1977 to 31.03.1987 and then he started working as Depot Moharir with effect from 01.07.1987 onwawrds. All these facts have not been denied by respondents rather they have admitted the facts asserted by petitioner in para Nos.8 and 9 of writ petition. In para 10 of reply to writ petition , respondent Department in a case of an identical employee, namely, Nandsingh who like him was declared semi-permanent only on the post of Depot Moharir with effect from 01.04.1989, whereas his service particulars were verified by the competent authority to the effect that Nand Singh started working with the respondent Department from 17.11.1973 and the case of said Shri Nandsingh was examined and the effect from 01.04.1978, the date on which he completed two years continuous service and accordingly he was extended the benefit. Copy of the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Labour & Law,Rajasthan, Jaipur, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect, are taken on record. 5. Dr. Mahendra Singh Kachhawa learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, has opposed the writ petition and submitted that question of giving benefit of semi-permanency on the post of Depot Moharir was decided as per his option and he could not be extended any other benefit. the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 310/1991 wherein he was given liberty to make a representation to the respondents.The petitioner never made such representation. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has rejoined and submitted that the petitioner made a representation but that was never accepted by the respondents. 7. the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 310/1991 wherein he was given liberty to make a representation to the respondents.The petitioner never made such representation. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has rejoined and submitted that the petitioner made a representation but that was never accepted by the respondents. 7. Having regard to the facts afore-stated especially keeping in view the statement of working days of petitioner, which is at Annexure-1, which is duly verified of working days of petitioner, which is at Annexure-1, which is duly verified by the Competent authority of respondent Department and which fact has not been disputed by respondents in para 8 and 9 of the reply, I find that petitioner is entitled to be extended benefit of semi-permanency with effect from 01.04.1980, the date on which he completed two years of service in terms of judgement of the Supreme Court. The respondents, on their own have made correction in the date of declaration of semi-permanent in the case of one similarly situated employee Nandsingh, who was declared semi-permanent on the post of Depot Moharir, in whose case also the date of declaration of semi-permanency as Depot Moharir was changed to 01.04.1978 when he completed two years service. However the order passed in the case given actual benefit thereof of not, however, learned counsel for petitioner asserted that he was paid. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this wit petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to be declared semi-permanent on the post of Head Moharir with effect from 01.08.1980, the date on which have been paid actual benefits to Nandsingh, in other words, if Nandsingh has been paid actual benefits , the petitioner shall also be entitled to be paid actual benefits and his case shall be dealt with exactly on similar footings ti that of Nandsingh. 9. Compliance of this order be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******