JUDGMENT Hon. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a bench copy of the writ petition and, accordingly, defect stands removed. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh/respondents does not object to the application for condonation of ten days’ delay being allowed. We have also looked into the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons furnished, allow the application (CLMA No. 12559 of 2011). 3. The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 provides in Clause (a) (iii) of Rule 2 thereof as follows:- “ ‘Government servant’ means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who- though not regularly appointed, had put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.” 4. Father of the appellant, who died in harness, was working in work-charge establishment of the State for a period in excess of three years and, accordingly, appellant thought that he is covered by the provisions contained in the said Rules. The fact remains, ‘work-charge department’ means a Department, which is not a permanent establishment. Unless there is a permanent department, question of there being a regular vacancy does not arise. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, noticed the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court rendered in Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in 2011 (1) U.D., 6. In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, Full Bench has expressed its opinion to the effect that the service rendered in work charge establishment before regularization is not a temporary service for the purpose of regular service, and that, without there being a post, a person cannot hold it either as a temporary employee or permanent employee. Full Bench further noted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar reported in (1996) 8 SCC 562, where it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the work-charge employees perform the duties of transitory and urgent nature so long as the work exists in a particular project. 5. Suresh Kumar reported in (1996) 8 SCC 562, where it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the work-charge employees perform the duties of transitory and urgent nature so long as the work exists in a particular project. 5. In those circumstances, on the premise that though the father of the appellant was not regularly appointed, but had put in three years’ continuous service in the employment in which he was employed, appellant cannot come within the purview of the said Rules, inasmuch as, father of the appellant was attached to work charge establishment. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.