Order : (ARUN MONGA, J.) 1. Petitioners herein have been in and out of the Court having been made to indulge in multiple foray of lis, as would borne of from narrative hereinafter. Since above titled bunch of petitions involve common issues/questions based on similar facts, they are being decided through this common order. CASE SET UP BY THE PETITIONERS 2. The brief facts first. For brevity, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6545/2017 are being taken into consideration. The petitioners inter-alia seek quashing of an order dated 23.02.2017 (Annex.21), vide which, their candidature for absorption as Store Munshi was rejected by the committee formed for this purpose. The petitioners also seek command to the respondents to provide the post of Store Munshi as per their seniority and thereafter grant benefit of semi-permanent status on the said post. 3. Petitioners were initially employed as Beldar/Chowkidar/ Road Mistri/ Godami/Store Attendant on work charge basis w.e.f. from their respective dates of appointment (as detailed specifically in later part). They are discharging the functions on the post of Store Munshi since their initial appointment. They possess the requisite qualification of secondary and equivalent of secondary for appointment of Store Munshi. The educational qualification and their knowledge for the post of Store Munshi was the main consideration for asking them to work on the post of Store Munshi. 3.1. Some of the work charged employees/counter parts of the petitioners were regularized on the post of Store Munshi and they were given the status of semi permanent. But, the petitioners despite being similarly situated were not given the same treatment. As such they were discriminated vis a vis others who were given the status of semi permanent/permanent on the post of Store Munshi. The instances of the persons who were given such treatment are as follows :- (i). The benefit of pay scale was given for the post of Store Munshi to Girjesh Kumar Sharma and Smt. Snehlata Sharma vide office order dated 02.12.1994 ( Annexure-3). (ii). Sanjay Kumar, who was initially appointed on 04.07.1985 also approached this Court by way of writ petition. His petition was allowed and he was given the benefit of semi-permanent on the post of Store Munshi and granted pay scale vide order dated 28.12.1996 (Annexure-4). (iii). (ii). Sanjay Kumar, who was initially appointed on 04.07.1985 also approached this Court by way of writ petition. His petition was allowed and he was given the benefit of semi-permanent on the post of Store Munshi and granted pay scale vide order dated 28.12.1996 (Annexure-4). (iii). Bhawani Sahai Bansiwal, who was initially appointed in July 1988 was also given the benefit of the post of Store Munshi by the intervention of this Court vide an order dated 26.09.1996 (Annexure-5). (iv). Raj Kishore Pareek also approached this Court by way of writ petition. His petition was also allowed. Thus he was given the entire benefit of semi-permanent on the post of Store Munshi vide an order dated 18.07.2008 (Annexure-6). The aforesaid persons, just like petitioners, were also originally appointed on the post of Beldar/Chowkidar. They are having the same qualification as the petitioners. They were also discharging the same duties as the petitioners. They have been given the benefit of semi permanent on the post of Store Munshi but not the petitioners. 3.2. The State Government to accommodate those who were working on the post of Store Munshi, issued an office order/letter dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure-7) whereby 250 posts of Store Munshi in pay scale of 3050-4950 were sanctioned. However, case of the petitioners was still not decided favorably. 3.3. Similarly situated other employees (through karmchari sanghthan), as the petitioners herein, being on same pedestal, also gave various representations but no heed was paid. Aggrieved, they filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8972/2008 before this court. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure-8) with the observation that the petitioners shall give fresh representation which shall be considered by the department by constituting a committee which was to finally decide the issue. 3.4. Pursuant to the High Court order dated 23.04.2010 a detailed representation was submitted to the respondents but no effective steps were taken. Therefore, S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1038/2010 was filed, wherein, the respondents stated that a Committee had been constituted and a meeting was also held on 02.07.2010 (Annexure-9). The contempt notice was discharged in view thereof. 3.5. In a meeting of the said committee held on 14.10.2010 (Annexure-10), it was resolved that workers cannot be given benefits of higher pay scales/promotion as it would be against the Rules. The contempt notice was discharged in view thereof. 3.5. In a meeting of the said committee held on 14.10.2010 (Annexure-10), it was resolved that workers cannot be given benefits of higher pay scales/promotion as it would be against the Rules. It was also resolved that since work charged employees are getting the benefit of selection grade after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services in lieu of promotion thus, no benefit can be granted in the form of higher pay and higher post. It was also resolved by the committee that any decision with regard to promotion or pay scale would be in contravention to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi Vs State of Karnataka , [12006 4 SCC page1] Claim of petitioners on the ground of parity was rejected by the committee stating that petitioners cannot be equated with those who were given benefit under direction of the court. 3.6. Petitioners also state that another similarly situated counter part of theirs i.e. one Satya Narain Jain raised an industrial dispute regarding non-grant of semi permanent status with effect from 03.10.1989 and denial of promotion on the post of Store Munshi. The Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur vide its award dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure-11) accepted the claim of Satya Narain Jain and held him entitled for semi permanent status with effect from 03.10.1989 and granted minimum of pay scale of Store Munshi from 03.07.1990. The department/State did not challenge the aforesaid award and implemented the same vide order dated 08.10.2009 (Annexure-12). 3.7. Another S.B Civil Writ Petition no. 3708/2011 was preferred by the similarly situated employees titled as Rajasthan Rajya Shikshit Karyaprabhari Karmchari Sanghthan before the Jaipur Bench of this Court. Same was allowed vide an order dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure-13) directing the respondents to declare the members of petitioner union semi permanent and permanent on the post of Store Munshi, as the case may be, on completion of service of two years and ten years, respectively, with all consequential benefits, as per Rule 3(3) and 3(2) of the Rules, 1964. 3.8. Subsequently, the respondent/department then issued a tentative seniority list vide letter dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure-14) for total 343 workcharge employee eligible for the absorption/promotion on the post of Store Munshi who are working as Jamadar, Chowkidar, Farash, Kulis, Beldar, Helper, Store Shayak, Gangman. The names of the petitioners were included in the said list. 3.9. 3.8. Subsequently, the respondent/department then issued a tentative seniority list vide letter dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure-14) for total 343 workcharge employee eligible for the absorption/promotion on the post of Store Munshi who are working as Jamadar, Chowkidar, Farash, Kulis, Beldar, Helper, Store Shayak, Gangman. The names of the petitioners were included in the said list. 3.9. The respondents issued communication dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-15) directing for compliance of this Court’s order dated 29.01.2014 passed in SBCWP No.3708/2011. But, only 28 persons, that too all juniors to the petitioners (as per the seniority list dated 20.02.2014 supra), were promoted as Store Munshi vide office order dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure-16). 3.10. Aggrieved, the petitioners then again submitted a detailed representation dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure-17) to grant them absorption/promotion on the post of Store Munshi as they were seniors and possessed the requisite qualification and work experience for the same and their names are mentioned in the seniority list of the eligible persons. 3.11. A Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1532/2014 "State of Rajasthan & Ors. V/s Rajasthan Rajya Shikshit Karyaprabhari Karamchari Sangathan", inter alia directed the respondents vide order dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure-18) that the Committee constituted under order of the Division Bench dated 20.11.2014 [in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya ; DB Special Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 546/2014 and other connected Appeals], shall examine the case of each of the employees vis-a-vis their service record and take decision in accordance with law. 3.12. When nothing was heard by the petitioners on their pending representation, they also preferred writ petition no. 8472/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure-19), whereby, the respondents were directed to examine the candidature of the petitioners, as per order dated 20.11.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court, by the committee constituted for the purpose of determining their appointment/absorption as Store Munshi. 3.13. Pursuant to the High Court order dated 11.05.2016, ibid, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities/committee and submitted their detailed representation (Annexure-20) alongwith the required documents. When the same was not considered, the petitioners gave a reminder but to no avail. 3.14. A contempt petition then came to be filed wherein notices were issued. Upon receipt of notices, a Committee was constituted by the respondents. When the same was not considered, the petitioners gave a reminder but to no avail. 3.14. A contempt petition then came to be filed wherein notices were issued. Upon receipt of notices, a Committee was constituted by the respondents. The said Committee considered the cases of the petitioners and by the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-21) found the petitioners as ineligible for the post of Store Munshi. 3.15. Committee wrongly rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that they had not worked as store munshi, notwithstanding that the respondents have also issued appreciation certificates and work experience certificates to the petitioners for working as Store Munshi. In this regard, the petitioners have appended Verification Form along with work experience certificate (Annexure-23 collectively). Illustratively, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sojat Division of the department issued Sanviksha Prapatra (Verification Memo) showing that Nandlal Gaur (petitioner no.5 herein) was appointed on the post of Gangman on 01.01.1987 but was working as Store Munshi since 1996 and also certified vide experience certificate dated 21.11.2016 that he possessed experience as Store Munshi and his work was satisfactory. 3.16. Hence the fresh round of litigation before this Court yet again, through the instant bunch of petitions. DEFENSE OF THE RESPONDENTS 4. The pointed stand taken by the respondents in para Nos. 12 and 26 of their reply is as under:- "12. That the contents of Para No.12 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated by the petitioners. It is submitted that the Finance Department has also considered the case of said writ petitioners and constituted a Committee to consider the matter of 29 workers. It was resolved by the Committee that the benefits as demanded by the petitioners cannot be given against the provision of Rules. It was also resolved that any decision with regard to promotion or pay scale would be in contravention of the decision passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnaka Vs. Uma Devi. Xxx xxx xxx 26. That in reply to grounds it is submitted that the action of the respondents in no way can be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The petitioners cannot claim parity on the basis of relief granted to certain individuals as the benefits were granted in pursuance of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Uma Devi. Xxx xxx xxx 26. That in reply to grounds it is submitted that the action of the respondents in no way can be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The petitioners cannot claim parity on the basis of relief granted to certain individuals as the benefits were granted in pursuance of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Further as far as the orders are concerned, the same have been passed in compliance of order passed by the Hon'ble Court subject to decision of special appeal by the respondent department. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioners are relying upon the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 29.01.2014 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3708/2011 (Rajasthan Rajya Shishit Karyaprabhari Karamchari Sanghthan Vs. State &Ors.) stating that the case is squarely covered by the said decision. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that against the order dated 29.01.2014 passed in the said writ petition, the State of Rajasthan preferred special appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1532/2014 (State of Rajasthan & ORs. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Shikshit Karyaprabhari Karamchari Sangthan) which special appeal has been allowed and order of learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2014 has been quashed and set aside and it has been directed that the candidature of each of employee be examined constituted and if any of the persons is not found to be eligible/suitable to be absorbed as Store Munshi, the authority shall be at liberty to take action against such employee. Copy of the order dated 10.02.2016 shall be kept ready for perusal of this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing." (emphasis supplied) CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS 5. The seniority list dated 20.02.2014 was prepared for the purpose of absorption/promotion to the post of Store Munshi from amongst candidates working as Jamadar, Beldar, Chowkidar, Road Mistri and Godam Workers. The names of the petitioners are duly mentioned in the said seniority list, which was issued by the respondent – Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary, PWD, Jaipur. The impugned order dated 23.02.2017 was issued by a committee in which one of the members was the same respondent, i.e., the Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary, PWD, Jaipur. The names of the petitioners are duly mentioned in the said seniority list, which was issued by the respondent – Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary, PWD, Jaipur. The impugned order dated 23.02.2017 was issued by a committee in which one of the members was the same respondent, i.e., the Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary, PWD, Jaipur. Since the seniority list was prepared under the authority of the same official and the candidature of the petitioners was considered therein for absorption/promotion to the post of Store Munshi, it is unjust and arbitrary for the respondents to now pass the impugned order whereby the candidature of the petitioners has not been considered. 5.1. 28 employees were absorbed by the order dated 01.04.2015 to the post of Store Munshi. Their candidature was similarly not considered in the later stages, and the respondents passed an order to cancel their absorption. However, pursuant to directions of the Court, interim protection was granted to such employees, and they continue to work on the said post. The petitioners, being similarly situated and fully eligible as per their qualifications and experience, have arbitrarily not been considered for absorption without any just cause. 5.2. The respondents issued the impugned order dated 23.02.2017, whereby the candidature of the petitioners and other similarly situated employees already absorbed as Store Munshi was not considered. However, those similarly situated employees continue to work on the said post. The petitioners possess the same qualifications and experience, yet their candidature was not considered without assigning any reasons, which amounts to a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5.3. The names of the petitioners appear in the seniority list dated 20.02.2014. The employees who were absorbed by the order dated 01.04.2015 and are still working on the post of Store Munshi are either equal or junior to the petitioners as per the said seniority list. Yet, their candidature was not considered by the committee in the order dated 23.02.2017. The petitioners, being on the same footing, are fully eligible for absorption to the post of Store Munshi. 5.4. The action of the respondents is discriminatory as between the petitioners and similarly situated employees, even though their names appear in the common seniority list dated 20.02.2014. The said list was prepared by the respondents, and several similarly situated employees were absorbed based on it. 5.4. The action of the respondents is discriminatory as between the petitioners and similarly situated employees, even though their names appear in the common seniority list dated 20.02.2014. The said list was prepared by the respondents, and several similarly situated employees were absorbed based on it. However, without any valid reason, the petitioners' candidature was not considered, which is a violation of their fundamental right to equality. 5.5. As per the order dated 01.04.2015, a total of 28 employees were promoted to the post of Store Munshi. The petitioners contend that many of those employees are junior to them as per the seniority list dated 20.02.2014. The promoted employees bear seniority numbers such as 17, 62, 78, 88, 186, 61, 64, 66, 81, 98, 112, 117, 126, 151, 130, 166, 201, 322, 326, 52, 86, 139, 152, and 131. Furthermore, employees at serial numbers 6, 22, and 27 were promoted although their names do not even appear in the seniority list. Yet, the petitioners, who are more senior, were not considered for promotion, without any valid justification. 5.6. The action of the respondents in denying similar treatment to the petitioners is in violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which provides that equals must be treated alike. 5.7. The decision dated 14.10.2010 is not in consonance with the directions issued by the Court. A bare perusal of the Court’s order dated 23.04.2010 reveals that it nowhere directed the PWD to obtain permission from or forward the matter to the Finance Department. Hence, the action of the respondents is discriminatory and arbitrary. 5.8. The department had earlier constituted a committee which extended benefits to all work-charged employees of the Rural Circle, and the cases of similarly situated work-charged employees working in the PHED Department were also considered by the State Government for absorption as Store Munshi, and the Finance Department granted its sanction. However, the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination. 5.9. In the evolved principles of service jurisprudence, it is a settled proposition that all similarly situated persons are entitled to equal and fair treatment, and it is not necessary for each individual to approach the Court for the same relief. No litigant should be left with the feeling that despite similar facts, they received different treatment. 5.10. The State, being a model employer, is expected to act fairly with its employees. No litigant should be left with the feeling that despite similar facts, they received different treatment. 5.10. The State, being a model employer, is expected to act fairly with its employees. However, in the present case, the conduct of the respondents is in contravention of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5.11. In the meeting held on 02.07.2010, the respondents themselves admitted that several persons junior to the petitioners were posted as Store Munshi. The Court also passed orders granting higher pay benefits to such juniors. Therefore, the respondents were obligated to extend the same benefit to the petitioners as well. 5.12. The cadre of the petitioners is a dying cadre, and they have been subjected to humiliation and injustice due to the negligence of the respondents. Their juniors, possessing the same qualifications, have been promoted and now function as their superiors, thereby causing undue harassment to the petitioners. 5.13. The decision dated 14.10.2010 is based on surmises and conjectures. The reasoning provided by the Finance Department is unsustainable. The decision in the case of Uma Devi has no application in the present matter, as the petitioners were not appointed through any backdoor method nor are they seeking regularization. The Finance Department has misapplied the Uma Devi judgment, particularly with respect to Point No. 4 in the resolution dated 14.10.2010. This misapplication has led to unnecessary litigation and compelled the petitioners to seek judicial remedy, even though the matter has already been settled and attained finality. 5.14. The justification offered by the department — that since selection grade benefits are granted to work-charged employees, there is no need to promote them to the post of Store Munshi — is baseless, unreasonable, and contrary to settled service jurisprudence. This approach effectively blocks the promotional avenues of the petitioners permanently, subjecting them to unwarranted hardship despite no fault on their part. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 6. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioners jointly with the prayer that respondents may be directed to grant the benefit to petitioners as per their seniority and provide the post of Store Munshi in pursuance of order dated 29.01.2014 and as per seniority list dated 20.02.2014. Therefore, the objection is that the joint writ petition is not maintainable because the facts regarding the service with regard to each petitioners are different. 6.1. Therefore, the objection is that the joint writ petition is not maintainable because the facts regarding the service with regard to each petitioners are different. 6.1. Affidavit in support of petition has been sworn in by only one petitioner as also the documents are only qua one of them. Therefore, the present writ filed petition by the petitioners is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. 6.2. On merits, the contentions are on the similar lines as the contents of the written reply. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsels which are more or less on the same lines as the grounds taken in the pleadings and perused the case file. I shall now proceed to deal with the merits and demerits thereof and render my opinion based on the discussion and reasoning contained herein after. APPLICABLE LAW, DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 8. Under Rule 3 of the Work-charged Employees Services Rules, 1964, the eligible employees are entitled to semi-permanent status after completing two years of service and permanent status upon completion of ten years. 8.1. Before proceeding further, reference may first be had to Rule 3 of the Work-charged Employees’ Service Rules, 1964, relied upon by the petitioners, which reads as under : "Rule 3. Categorization :- (1) Work charged employees (including the regular technical staff of Water Works Department) for the purpose of these rules shall be divided into the following three categories:- (i)Permanent status' (ii) Semi-permanent status, and (iii) Causal: Provided, however, that nothing in these rules shall entitled any work charged employee, categorized permanent or semi permanent to claim the status or benefits of permanency or semi permanency to which a regular Government employee is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules. (2) Employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (3) Employees in continuous service for two years or more except those covered by sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work charged employees or of semi permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (3) Employees in continuous service for two years or more except those covered by sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work charged employees or of semi permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (4) No employee shall acquire the status specified in sub rules (2) and (3) without the prior sanction of the competent authority, as may be notified by the Head of the Department from time to time." (emphasis supplied) 8.2. The Rule ibid governs grant of status of permanent or semi- permanent to work charged employee on the post on which he was appointed or has worked for the period specified therein. What requires examination is whether the petitioners have been/are discharging the functions on the post of Store Munshi since their initial appointment, which were admittedly made as Beldar/Chowkidar/Road Mistri/ Godami/Store Attendant. 8.3. In light of the Rule, ibid, reference may be had to the Judgment (Annexure 18) dated 10.02.2016 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1532/2014 challenging the order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3708/2011. It was noticed by the learned Division Bench that in the second round of litigation (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3708/2011) nothing came on record which could justify as to whether the individual employee was at all discharging duties of the post of Store Munshi and qualified to hold the post. The learned Division Bench observed/held as under: “…. … The self same controversy came up before the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of State of Raj. &Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya (DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.546/2014) and other connected appeals and the Division Bench of this Court after examining the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan &ors Vs. Hem Singh &ors (DB Civil Special Appeal No.845/2011) and another Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Lal Chand &Ors, decided at Jaipur Bench of this Court, disposed of the batch of special appeals vide judgment dt.20/11/2014 by observing/holding in Para 17, 21, 22 and 24 ad-infra:- “17. We, however, find that the writ petitions were required to be decided by learned Single Judge on the facts of each case. Lal Chand &Ors, decided at Jaipur Bench of this Court, disposed of the batch of special appeals vide judgment dt.20/11/2014 by observing/holding in Para 17, 21, 22 and 24 ad-infra:- “17. We, however, find that the writ petitions were required to be decided by learned Single Judge on the facts of each case. Even if the ratio of judgment in Hem Singh's case was to be applied, learned Single Judges were, in the writ petitions giving rise to these special appeals, required to ascertain whether, in fact, the petitioners were initially appointed as Store Munshi and if they were not initially appointed as Store Munshi, the date from which they were working or the work of Store Munshi was given to them, to give them semi permanent or permanent status and consequently, the payment of arrears, after grant of such status. 21. We make it clear that Hem Singh's case was decided on the findings that the petitioners in those cases were either employed initially on the post of Store Munshi in Work Charge Establishment of Public Health & Engineering Department or they were allowed to work subsequently as Store Munshi and that they were entitled to be granted semi permanent status after completing two years of service and permanent status after completing 10 years of service. On the facts, as they were given in Hem Singh's case, it was decided that all such persons were entitled to consequential benefits of working on the post of Store Munshi. The benefits, however, had to be given from the date, they were working as Store Munshi and for which, they should be eligible and have not received any promotion in their field, such as Pump Driver or Fitter. 22. Now since the screening is in process and the report of the Screening Committee is under consideration of the State government, we do not propose to examine each and every case for ascertaining the facts as to whether the respondents are entitled to be given benefits and whether they will be entitled to any arrears. Any decision taken by the State Government will abide by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Special Leave to Appeal, in which, notices have been confined to payment of arrears prior to 2007 or of any orders, which the Supreme Court, pass on an application, which the State Government proposes to move. 24. Any decision taken by the State Government will abide by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Special Leave to Appeal, in which, notices have been confined to payment of arrears prior to 2007 or of any orders, which the Supreme Court, pass on an application, which the State Government proposes to move. 24. On the aforesaid discussion, all these special appeals are disposed of with directions that the respondents will be entitled to the benefit of Division Bench judgment in Hem Singh's case, only after and subject to the Screening to be carried out for weeding out the persons, who were either not eligible or have received promotions in their own trade other than the trade of Store Munshi. It goes without saying that this judgment will be subject to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18046/2012. There shall be no orders as to costs.” Indisputably, in the instant case also, the case of the individual employee has not been examined neither by the Committee nor by the ld. Single Judge and the principle laid down is still the subject matter pending before the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in Para No. 24 of its judgment in the case of State of Raj. &Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya (DB Civil Special Appeal (supra), observed that it will be subject to outcome of the pending Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18046/2012. But the fact still remains that the case of the individual employee has to be examined obviously on the principals laid down by coordinate Bench of this Court that whether the employee is discharging duties of the post of Store Munshi and indisputably, that has not been looked into by the ld. Single Judge in the instant case nor there is any material on record to support thereof and the direction of the ld. Single Judge in the instant case nor there is any material on record to support thereof and the direction of the ld. Single Judge in the impugned judgment to grant benefit of semi-permanent and permanent status straightaway to the employees in the cadre of Store Munshi u/R. 3(3) and 3(2) of the Rules, 1964, in our view, may not hold good moreso when the coordinate Bench of this Court has examined the self same dispute and arrived to a conclusion that a Committee has to be constituted which may look into the record of individual employee and take decision as to whether the employee is entitled to seek benefit of semi-permanent and permanent status on the post of Store Munshi of which duties, as alleged, he has discharged of which reference has been made in the case of State of Raj. &Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya (supra). It is also brought to our notice that after the contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondents, without going into merits of the matter an order dt.01/04/2015 came to be passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raj., Jaipur granting benefit of semi-permanent and permanent to the members of the union who initially were 29 in number, out of which one died and one has retired from the post of Store Munshi but that remain subject to the final outcome of the present special appeal and no substantial right could be said to be conferred. It is also brought to our notice that the order dt. 01/04/2015 has been passed without examining the case of individual employee by the Committee constituted in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Raj. &Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya (supra). We have heard counsel for the parties and taking note of the view which the coordinate Division Bench has expressed in the case of State of Raj. &Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya (supra), we are of the confirmed view that unless the Committee examines the case of individual employee based on record, obviously by a general stroke of pen would not be entitled, ipse-dixit, the benefit of semi-permanent and permanent status on completion of 2 and 10 years of service u/R. 3(3) and 3(2) of the Rules, 1964 as a matter of course and as already observed, the order of the ld. Single Judge is not sustainable at the same time, since all these employees have been given benefit of semi-permanent and permanent status on the post of Store Munshi without their cases remain examined individually by the Committee and that being subject to final outcome of the present special appeal, we clarify that let these employees may be allowed to continue as an adhoc arrangement for the time being in the cadre of Store Munshi and the Committee constituted under the orders of coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Raj. &Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya (supra), shall examine the case of each of the employees based on their service record and take decision in accordance with law keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court and if the Committee arrives to the conclusion that either of them is not entitled to continue as Store Munshi, obviously based on service record, is at liberty to pass appropriate orders and at the same time, if any adverse order is passed against any individual, he will be at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits. The appeal accordingly succeeds and is hereby allowed and order of the ld. Single Judge dt.29/01/2014 is quashed & set aside and the employees appointed as Store Munshi pursuant to order dt.01/04/2015 may be allowed to continue and the candidature of each of the employee be examined by the Committee constituted under order of the Division Bench dt.20/11/2014 & if any of the persons is not found to be eligible/suitable to be absorbed as Store Munshi, the authority shall be at liberty to take action against such employee in accordance with law. No costs.” (emphasis supplied) 8.4. At this stage it is pertinent to note that Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.18046/2012 titled State of Rajasthan & ors. v. Hem Singh & ors. arising out of this Court’s Division Bench judgment dated 03.02.2012 in DBCSA No.845/2011 referred to above was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.01.2015. Thus, the Division Bench judgment dated 03.02.2012 in DBCSA No. 845/2011 in State of Rajasthan &Ors. Vs Hem Singh & Ors. has attained finality and holds the field. The same was also followed by another Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1532/2014 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Thus, the Division Bench judgment dated 03.02.2012 in DBCSA No. 845/2011 in State of Rajasthan &Ors. Vs Hem Singh & Ors. has attained finality and holds the field. The same was also followed by another Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1532/2014 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Shikshit Karyaprabhari Karamchari Sangthan) decided on 10.02.2016 (Annexure 18). In terms thereof, the persons who were either appointed on the post of Store Munshi or otherwise they were allowed to work subsequently as Store Munshi would be entitled to be granted semi-permanent status after completing two years of service and permanent status after completing 10 years of service, provided they were eligible (for appointment as Store Munshi) and had not received any promotion in their field such as Pump Driver or Fitter. 8.5. At this stage, before proceeding further, impugned minutes of meeting (Annex.21) dated 23.02.2017 may first be seen, translation of which is as under :- “Meeting Proceedings Details In compliance with the decision passed on 10.02.2016 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1532/14 State of Rajasthan vs. Rajasthan State Educated Work-Charge Employees Association (total 28 workers) by the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Jaipur, and the decisions passed in Case No. S.B.C.W.P. No.8472/15 Shri Dhul Singh & Others (total 22 workers) on 11.02.2016 and S.B.C.W.P. No.12233/15 Shri Arjun Ram & Others (13 workers) on 11.05.2016 by the Hon’ble High Court at Jodhpur, a meeting of the committee constituted by the administrative department was held today, 02.02.2017, in the chamber of the Chief Engineer & Additional Secretary under his chairmanship. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct screening of the personnel directed by the Hon’ble Court to be appointed as Store Munshi. The committee convened after receiving consent from the Finance Rules Department vide ID No. 101603148 dated 11.08.2016. The following officers were present in the meeting:: 1. Financial Advisor, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Superintending Engineer & Technical Assistant-I, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. Joint Legal Advisor, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur The committee unanimously took the following decisions: The committee reviewed the cases of all 13, 22, and 28 work-charged personnel mentioned in the respective court cases. In all the aforementioned cases, none of the personnel had originally been appointed to the post of Store Munshi, nor had any order been issued at any time appointing them to the Store Munshi position. In all the aforementioned cases, none of the personnel had originally been appointed to the post of Store Munshi, nor had any order been issued at any time appointing them to the Store Munshi position. Additionally, it is noteworthy that in the year 1996, the State Government had issued directions that all material management would be handled by contractors, due to which the Public Works Department has not had a designated Store function since 1996. Case-wise details are as follows: 1. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1532/14 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajasthan State Educated Work-Charge Employees Association, Jaipur - 28 workers): Upon screening, and examining the qualifications and experience certificates received from the divisional office, it was found that none of the 28 employees mentioned in the petition were eligible for the post of Store Munshi. None had worked or were appointed to this post at any time. Therefore, none were found eligible. 2. S.B.C.W.P. No.8472/15 (Shri Dhul Singh & Others-22 workers): Similar screening revealed that none of the 22 employees had been appointed to or worked in the post of Store Munshi at any point. Thus, none were eligible. 3. S.B.C.W.P. No.12233/15 (Shri Arjun Ram & Others-13 workers): After screening and reviewing qualifications and supporting documents, it was found that none of the 13 employees had served in the role of Store Munshi from their appointment onward. Therefore, none qualified for the said post. Accordingly, in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Courts, the cases were reviewed and the aforementioned decisions were made, with all members in agreement. (Shiv Lahari Sharma) Chief Engineer & Additional Secretary PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Sanjeev Mathur) Superintending Engineer & Technical Assistant-I PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Jugal Kishore Sharma) Financial Advisor PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Radha Nagar) Joint Legal Advisor PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur.” Challenge to the above order is primarily founded on the ground that the petitioners had not worked as Store Munshi at all, be it two years or ten years. 8.6. Let us advert to the same based on the contents of the above impugned order. The committee’s decision, ibid, reflects a superficial and procedurally deficient approach that fails to meet the standards of reasoned administrative action. While the stated purpose of the meeting was to conduct a substantive screening of personnel for appointment as Store Munshi—as directed by the Court—the decision lacks meaningful reasoning and fails to demonstrate proper application of mind. The committee’s decision, ibid, reflects a superficial and procedurally deficient approach that fails to meet the standards of reasoned administrative action. While the stated purpose of the meeting was to conduct a substantive screening of personnel for appointment as Store Munshi—as directed by the Court—the decision lacks meaningful reasoning and fails to demonstrate proper application of mind. Absence of Detailed Reasoning is self reflective as the decision of committee summarily concludes that none of the personnel reviewed were eligible, based solely on the assertion that no formal appointment orders existed for the Store Munshi post. There is no nuanced examination of the actual nature of work performed, experience, or whether these personnel had, in practice, discharged the duties of a Store Munshi, which is essential in service matters where actual work experience can substitute formal designation. The minutes show no evidence of deliberation or debate among committee members about the broader implications of their findings, alternative interpretations of eligibility, or any consideration of the specific directions of the Hon’ble Court beyond a mechanical compliance. It is nothing but suggestive of a perfunctory process rather than a reasoned review. 9. Be that as it may, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were initially engaged as Beldar, Chowkidar, Road Mistri, Godami, or Store Attendant on a work-charged basis. The stand taken by them in para 3 of the petition that they are actually working as store munshi and the corresponding response being relevant are reproduced here in under :- “3. That the petitioners were initially employed as Beldar/Chowkidar/Road Mistri/ Godami/ Store Attendant on work charge basis. The petitioners are discharging the function on the post of Store Munshi since their initial appointment. Copies of the available appointment orders/certificates are collectively annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 .” Corresponding Response “3. That the averments made in para no.3 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated by the petitioner.” Likewise in para 28 of the petition it is averred as below, with proof appended therewith - “28. That the respondents also issued the appreciation certificates to the petitioners for their work as store Munshi and they also mentioned that the petitioners are fully eligible and having knowledge for the post of store Munshi. Copies of the available certificates are collectively annexed here with and marked as Annexure- 23. That the respondents also issued the appreciation certificates to the petitioners for their work as store Munshi and they also mentioned that the petitioners are fully eligible and having knowledge for the post of store Munshi. Copies of the available certificates are collectively annexed here with and marked as Annexure- 23. “ As against the above specific averments made in writ petition, the corresponding response of the respondents in para 25 of their reply is as below :- “25. That in reply to averments made in para 25 to 28 of the writ petition, it is reiterated that the petitioners cannot claim parity on the basis of relief granted to certain individuals as the benefits for granted in pursuance of order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. “ 9.1. As is borne out, the specific claim of the petitioners, as detailed in paragraphs 3 and 28 of the writ petition, is that they have been actually performing the duties of Store Munshi since the very inception of their employment. 9.2. The respondents, however, have neither specifically denied these assertions nor provided a concrete rebuttal. The vague and evasive reply offered in response to paragraph 3 does not amount to a categorical denial. Moreover, there is nothing placed on record to contradict the petitioners’ consistent claim that they have functioned as Store Munshi since their initial appointments. The respondents were at liberty to place on record any credible material, particulars, or official documentation to challenge or disprove this factual assertion. Being the employer, the respondents are in exclusive possession and control of the petitioners’ service records. Yet, they have not produced any relevant service documents, nor have they taken a definitive stand to counter the claim. As noted above, the respondents have simply pleaded that these averments made in para no. 3 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner as stated. Specific averments of the petitioners have been vaguely replied. In this factual vacuum and in the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, this Court is compelled to draw an adverse inference against the respondents. 9.3. 3 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner as stated. Specific averments of the petitioners have been vaguely replied. In this factual vacuum and in the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, this Court is compelled to draw an adverse inference against the respondents. 9.3. Pertinently, on the other hand, the petitioners have also substantiated their position with a sworn affidavit dated 25.02.2019 by petitioner No. 1, Dhool Singh, affirming under oath that all twenty petitioners have consistently discharged the duties of Store Munshi since their initial appointments—even if their original designations were Beldar, Chowkidar, Road Mistri, Godami, or Store Attendant. Relevant part thereof is as under :- “2. That the petitioners’ candidatures for their promotion on the post of Store Munshi have not been considered as per the Office Order dated 20.02.2014, whereby, the petitioners names are also mentioned in the such seniority list for said promotion. 3. That by the minutes of meeting of committee dated 23.02.2017, the petitioners have been declared ineligible for the post of Store Munshi. 4. That meantime, the respondent again issued the order dated 07.02.2019 for consider the candidature of the employees on the post of Munshi / store Munshi for Zone Wise in which, the name of the few petitioners also mentioned in the said list at Sr. No.153, 147, 150, 138, 149, 144, 136 etc. That the respondents also mentioned in the said order that the such employees or petitioners ==are working as Store Munshi and they are having the eligibility for promotion on the said post as on the date of 01.04.2013 in pursuance of the decision of meeting dated 15.09.2015. Copy of the order dated 07.02.2019 alongwith the relevant list are collectively annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-24.” In the absence of any specific stand or contradictory deposition by the department and/or any further details/particulars, documentary and reliable proof to negate the petitioners’ claim this Court has to necessarily draw an adverse inference qua the respondents. 9.4. Apart from above, qua the claim of the petitioners of having worked as Store Munshi, affirmative case pleaded by them along with supporting material i.e. seniority list as Store Munshi as well as their initial appointment dates on the various posts which are one level below Store Munshi, have been appended with the writ petition which have not been disputed. Apart from above, qua the claim of the petitioners of having worked as Store Munshi, affirmative case pleaded by them along with supporting material i.e. seniority list as Store Munshi as well as their initial appointment dates on the various posts which are one level below Store Munshi, have been appended with the writ petition which have not been disputed. In fact, the seniority list dated 20.02.2014 of the eligible candidates to be considered for the purpose of absorption/appointment/regularization on the post of Store Munshi was prepared by the department itself, which is not disputed. For ease of reference, individual case of the petitioners is culled out in the following table :- PETITIONERS IN SBCWP NO. 6545/2017 Petitioner No. - Name Designation Date of appointment Date of semi permanent Date of permanent Education qualification Place of posting Seniority no. As per order 20.02.2014 1 - Dhool Singh Store Attended 01.07.80 01.07.82 01.07.90 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. 3 Jodhpur 32 2 - Ganpat Bissa Gangman 01.03.89 01.03.91 01.03.99 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Desuri 249 3 - Prakash Chandra Beldar 07.08.89 06.08.91 07.08.99 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Desuri 253 4 - Satay Narayan Ameta Beldar 01.04.86 01.04.88 01.04.96 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Kumbalgarh 137 5 - Parwat Singh Solanki Beldar 01.08.87 01.08.89 01.08.97 Hr. Secondary Ex.En PWD Div. Aameth 178 6 - Kailash Chandra Beldar 01.04.84 01.04.86 01.04.94 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. --- 85 7 - Mangal Singh Chowkidar 01.10.89 16.07.96 01.10.99 Secondary A.En. PWD, Mech. Sub Div. Pali 257 8 - Chain Singh Beldar 01.04.86 01.04.88 01.04.96 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. 3 Jodhpur 137 9 - Roop Singh Gangman 13.05.91 13.05.93 13.05.01 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. II Pali 284 10 - Kheta Ram Gangman 18.05.88 18.05.90 18.05.98 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Aahor 209 11 - Devgiri Gangman 21.01.85 21.01.87 21.01.95 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Rohat 99 12 - Mangilal Gangman 01.09.88 01.09.90 01.01.99 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Pali 229 13 - Nand Lal Gaur Gangman 01.01.87 01.01.89 31.12.96 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Jaitaran 159 14 - Ashok Trivedi Gangman 01.10.88 01.10.90 30.09.98 M.Com. A.En. PWD, Sub Div. I Sojat 233 15 - Yusuf Khan Gangman 01.11.88 01.11.90 31.10.98 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. I Sojat 237 16 - Saroj Kumar Gangman 01.05.85 01.05.87 30.04.95 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. PWD, Sub Div. Jaitaran 159 14 - Ashok Trivedi Gangman 01.10.88 01.10.90 30.09.98 M.Com. A.En. PWD, Sub Div. I Sojat 233 15 - Yusuf Khan Gangman 01.11.88 01.11.90 31.10.98 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. I Sojat 237 16 - Saroj Kumar Gangman 01.05.85 01.05.87 30.04.95 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. I Sojat 105 17 - Jorawar Singh Gangman 06.06.90 06.06.92 05.06.2000 Hr. Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. I Marwar Junction 268 18 - Kamal Kishore Gangman 05.12.83 05.12.85 01.02.94 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. I Pali 82 19 - Bhikam Das Gangman 01.12.86 01.12.88 01.01.98 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Birara 157 20 - Amba Ram Store Attendend 01.03.80 01.04.82 28.02.90 Secondary A.En. PWD, Sub Div. Jodhpur 29 9.5. Not only that, the petitioners have also appended illustrative case of one Nandlal Gaur who was though appointed on the post of Gangman on 01.01.1987 (as certified by Executive Engineer, Annexure-23) but sometime in the year 1996 (date not disclosed in Annexure-23), he was deputed on the post of Store Munshi. The Executive Engineer of the department has specifically issued Verification Form, along with which the petitioner was also issued work experience certificate that since 1996, he had been working as Store Munshi. English translation of Annexure-23 reads as below :- “Annexure-23 Verification Form 1. Name of Employee : Banshilal Gaur, son of Shri Pukhraj Gaur 2. Current Post : Gangman 3. Initial Appointment Post : Gangman (3A) Daily Wage Worker/Work-Charge/Appointment Type : Work-Charge 4. Date of Appointment and Joining : 01.01.1987 If appointed by court order, provide details i) Name of Court : Labour Court, Jodhpur ii) Case Number : 94/1990 iii) Date of Decision : 17.10.1995 iv) Summary of Decision : Decision in favor of the employee v) Implementation of Decision : Approval No. Mu.A.K.1210/04.04.96 5. Educational Qualification at Time of Appointment : Higher Secondary, Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Date: 1982 6. Post-appointment Qualification : B.A., Ajmer University, Ajmer, Date: 1988 7. Departmental Approval for Post-appointment Qualification : Nil 8. Date of Semi-permanent Status : 01.01.1989, Post: Gangman 9. Date of Permanent Status : 31.12.1996, Post: Gangman 10. Any Amendment in Semi-permanent/Permanent Status Entry (if any) : Nil 11. Date of Regularization: 01.01.1998 12. Post-appointment Qualification : B.A., Ajmer University, Ajmer, Date: 1988 7. Departmental Approval for Post-appointment Qualification : Nil 8. Date of Semi-permanent Status : 01.01.1989, Post: Gangman 9. Date of Permanent Status : 31.12.1996, Post: Gangman 10. Any Amendment in Semi-permanent/Permanent Status Entry (if any) : Nil 11. Date of Regularization: 01.01.1998 12. Promotion Details: S.No. Previous Post Promoted Post Competent Authority Order No. & Date Other Details None 13.Experience in the role of Store Munshi S.No. Is the employee working in the role of Store Munshi (Yes/No) If yes, since when If yes, since when Other Details in this regard 1 Yes 1996 Certificate Attached 14. If the employee has any documents related to experience in the role of Store Munshi or equivalent post, attach them Experience Certificate is attached. Certification It is certified that the above information is true and correct as per the office records. I have personally verified the authenticity of this information. Jassa Ram Choudhary (Executive Engineer) Public Works Department, Block, Sojat City.” “Experience Certificate It is certified that Mr. Nandlal Gaud, son of Mr. Pukhraj Gaud, is employed as a Gangman in the Public Works Department, Sub-Division Jaitaran. The employee is performing the duties of a Store Munshi and has experience in the work of a Store Munshi. His performance is satisfactory. Executive Engineer, 21/11/16 Public Works Department,Division Sojat City” 9.6. The above verification form read with the experience certificate (Annexure-23) clearly shows that one Nandlal was working as Store Munshi as on 21.11.2016 i.e. the date of certification, since 1996. Based on that, the writ petition was filed on or about 27.05.2017 and, therefore, it transpires that he had completed more than twenty years of work on the post of Store Munshi as on the date of filing of the writ petition. 9.7. Having gone through the above, which is not disputed by the respondents, as no material has been placed on record to contradict the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer who is the competent authority to certify as to whether the petitioners served as Store Munshi or not, it was open to the department to have sought clarification from the competent authority issuing the aforesaid certificate i.e. the Executive Engineer qua the validity of the same. It appears that the stoic silence of the respondents qua the same is nothing but an admission that Nandlal Gaur (petitioner no.5) was indeed working as Store Munshi since 1996. 9.8. As regards the other petitioners, it was canvassed in the course of arguments that similar Verification Forms and work experience certificates have been issued by the competent authorities. Pertinently, though in para 28 of the petition, it has been specifically pleaded that the certificates of the petitioners certifying that they have worked as Store Munshi are collectively annexed as Annexure-23 but Annexure-23 is only one certificate of petitioner no.5 and the other certificates as pleaded are amiss. On a query by Court as to why the same are not on record, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the entire record has not been appended with the writ petition for the sake of brevity and only one such certificate has been appended as an example. 9.9. There is another aspect of the matter i.e. rejection by the committee qua the claim of the petitioners to have worked as Store Munshi. The same has already been reproduced above, a perusal of which clearly reflects that the rejection is without assigning any reasons, whatsoever, plausible or otherwise, so that this court could apply its independent mind on the reasoning given by the Committee to reject the case of the petitioners. It is cryptically stated that the review of the record clearly reveals that neither they were appointed as Store Munshi nor they have worked as such. There is no whisper as to how the material which the petitioners have given in support of the claim qua working as Store Munshi along with their representations, were not found to be admissible by the committee. In the absence of any reasoning and/or discussion qua the rejection of the claim of the petitioners, even this Court is unable to give its opinion on the validity of the rejection. Merely one line finding has been given while rejecting the claim of the petitioners without assigning any valid justification. 9.10. In the absence of any reasoning and/or discussion qua the rejection of the claim of the petitioners, even this Court is unable to give its opinion on the validity of the rejection. Merely one line finding has been given while rejecting the claim of the petitioners without assigning any valid justification. 9.10. As regards junior to the petitioners who were on the seniority list (particularly, the seniority list is not disputed), once again no justification has come forth either in the defence taken by the respondents or otherwise in the course of arguments as to how the juniors were found suitable than the petitioners, given that both of them were equally placed in as much as, nature of their duties as well as qualifications. Many of the petitioners being prior appointees than the one who have been given the benefit of semi permanent/permanent status prior to the date of the petitions, is not disputed. Merely because they had approached this Court for mitigation of their grievance and which was remedied by the directions of this Court, is no reason to treat the petitioners as unequals by holding that since they did not approach the court, therefore, they are disentitled to seek equity even if they are otherwise eligible. 9.11. In the absence of specific denial or production of contrary documentary evidence by the employer—who is the custodian of official service records—an adverse inference is thus liable to be drawn against the respondents. In fact, as noticed already, the reply filed by the respondents is also evasive and non-committal in nature, and does not traverse the specific averments made by the petitioners. Assuming the burden of disproving that petitioners never worked as Store Munshi was not that of the employer, even then, it does not augur well on its part to with hold the information/service records or even depose specifically, which would have thrown light on the issue in hand. While the respondents relies on certain stand taken in their reply, though a non committal one, but yet it was under duty to produce what it is in exclusive possession of instead of relying on abstract doctrine of onus of proof and take advantage of its dominant position as an employer. 9.12. While the respondents relies on certain stand taken in their reply, though a non committal one, but yet it was under duty to produce what it is in exclusive possession of instead of relying on abstract doctrine of onus of proof and take advantage of its dominant position as an employer. 9.12. As observed above, in present case, it has been held that the petitioners as mentioned in the seniority list maintained by department (details given in para 4 of affidavit dated 24.02.2019 of Dhool Singh) who have been/are discharging the functions on the post of Store Munshi since their initial appointment are entitled to the benefit of Rule 3, supra. In this view of the matter and the parameters laid down by the learned Division Bench in judgment dated 03.02.2012 in DBCSA No. 845/2011 in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs Hem Singh & Ors. (which has attained finality), also followed by another Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1532/2014 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Shikshit Karyaprabhari Karamchari Sangthan) decided on 10.02.2016 (Annexure 18), all such petitioners are held entitled to the grant of semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi on completion of two years of service and permanent status after completing 10 years of service upon verification that they have been working as Store Munshi for the prescribed period. 9.13. Such petitioners thus rightly contend that the decision rendered by the committee is neither legally sound nor factually justified, and further, it is discriminatory. It is categorically asserted that when other individuals with identical qualifications have been extended the same benefit, there exists no lawful or rational ground to deny the same relief to the petitioners. Whereas, the respondents have though asserted that persons named in para 7 of the petition namely Girjesh Kumar Sharma, Smt. Snehlata Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Bhawani Sahai, Raj Kishore Pareek were appointed on the post of Store Munshi in compliance with the orders passed in their favour by this Court. In my opinion, as long they were discharging same duties as petitioners, their appointment as Store Munshi would confer entitlement to claim parity with the aforesaid persons who were appointed on the post of Store Munshi, regardless that they were appointed under the specific orders passed by this Court in their favour. Petitioners’ cases are similar/analogous to the aforesaid persons. 10. Petitioners’ cases are similar/analogous to the aforesaid persons. 10. It is well settled that classification must not be arbitrary or artificial and that once a category of employees is found to be similarly placed in terms of qualification, duties, and responsibilities, they cannot be treated differently for the purposes of service benefits. This Court is thus of the considered view that the action of the respondent authorities in denying the benefit of semi-permanent and permanent status to the petitioners is unjustified, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Moreover, the case of the petitioners is further fortified by Rule 3 of the Workcharged Employees Services Rules, 1964, which provides for the grant of semi-permanent status after completion of two years of continuous service and permanent status after ten years. When another similarly situated individual with identical qualifications and comparable service history has been granted the said benefit, there exists no reasonable basis for denying the same to the petitioners. The principle of equal treatment of equals and non-discrimination among similarly situated employees is too well-established to be diluted. 12. As a result of above discussion, the impugned decision/ minutes of committee dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-21) are quashed and it is held that Nandlal Gaur (petitioner no.5) was indeed working as Store Munshi since 1996. Qua the rest of the petitioners, the respondents are directed to identify the eligible petitioners afresh (just as Nandlal Gaur) from the seniority list prepared by the department, verify their respective dates of appointments and if the same are prior to the ones who have been given benefit of option/ appointment/promotion as Store Munshi, in that case, such of the petitioners be also given the same benefits. Since individual record of petitioners has not been appended herein, it is, therefore, deemed appropriate that the petitioners should provide the supporting documents in the same/ similar manner as for Nandlal Guar appended with the writ petition, to the competent authority to enable it to redetermine whether they or any of them have worked as Store Munshi and period thereof, after verification from the quarters concerned in case/s such verification is deemed necessary. Needless to say that the petitioners shall have to submit the supporting documents of their having worked as Store Munshi duly certified by the respective competent authorities in the sub-divisions they work i.e. Assistant Engineer or Executive Engineer, as the case may be prior to carrying out the exercise of verification. The same shall be verified and if it is found that they are entitled to be granted semi permanent status after completing two years of service and likewise, to be granted permanent status after completing ten years of service, they shall be given the benefit of working on the post of Store Munshi with effect from the date/year when they were actually given the charge of Store Munshi based on the individual certificates. It is further made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to the benefit of Division Bench judgment in Hem Singh’s case, ibid only after the aforesaid screening is carried out so as to ensure that the persons who are not eligible or who have not been issued work experience certificates as Store Munshi, are weeded out. 13. All the petitions are thus partly allowed with directions as above, in terms of interim order dated 01.06.2017 which is as under :- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical matter being SBCWP No. 6047/2017 this court has issued notice and granted interim order. Hence, issue notice, returnable on 05.7.2017. Issue notice of the stay application also. Notices be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner for effecting service. Any promotion/absorption made, during the pendency of the present writ petition, on the post of Store Munshi; shall be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. Connect with SBCWP No. 6047/2017.” 14. To sum up, this Court holds that the denial of semi- permanent and permanent status to the eligible petitioners (to be afresh identified) is legally unsustainable and factually indefensible. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of semi-permanent and permanent status to the eligible petitioners (to be identified, per directions) in terms of Rule 3 of the Workcharged Employees Services Rules, 1964, within a period of three months from the date of the petitioners approaching the respondents with web print of this order. All consequential benefits, including notional seniority and arrears, shall also follow in accordance with law. All consequential benefits, including notional seniority and arrears, shall also follow in accordance with law. It is also made clear that in terms of the interim order dated 01.06.2017, the seniority list of the Store Munshi shall be redetermined after implementation of the necessary screening qua the petitioners, provided they are found entitled to the same benefit based on their work experience certificate as Store Munshi. 15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.