Workcharge employees who have completed ten years of service are entitled to be made permanent and granted allowances similar to regular employees, as per the Workcharge Employees' Service Rules, 1964, Rule 3, and the judgment in Rajasthan State Electric Workers' Union, PWD, Jaipur and others v. The State of Rajasthan, 1989 (1) RLR 609.

1. 1. As per the facts mentioned in the memo of writ petition work charge employees who had completed more than ten years service on various posts have formed the petitioner Association. The petitioner submitted several representations, from time to time, to the State Government for getting their services regularised and also to grant permanent status to its members and for grant of allowances admissible to the regular employees but with no result. This court in Rajasthan State Electric Workers' Union, PWD, Jaipur and others v. The State of Rajasthan, 1989 (1) RLR 609, has held that the workcharge employees who had completed ten years' service are entitled to be made permanent and if necessary orders in this regard are not passed conferring permanent status, they shall be deemed to be holding such permanent status. The State Government was further directed to pay other allowance similar to permanent employees. It had further been observed that the judgment shall also apply to all such employees who have not been party to that writ petition. In spite of the above judgment, which was a judgment in rem, necessary orders have not been passed by the government. As per the Workcharge Employees' Service Rules, 1964 under Rule 3, it has been provided that the employees in continuous service for two years or more shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent workcharge employee and the employees who have been in service for last ten years or more shall be eligible for the status of permanent workcharge employees provided in both the cases their record of service is satisfactory. In spite of clear provisions of the Rules and the decision of this Court, no orders were passed and therefore, a notice dated 9.2.1990 for demand of justice was submitted by the petitioner on 12.2.90 but with no result and it fell into the deaf ears. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed on 2.4.1990. Notices were issued to show cause on 23.5.90 as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of. A reply has been filed by the State Government on 25.8.1990 where it has been submitted that the petitioner is not a registered body or affiliated to any trade union. It has further been submitted that the respondent No. 2 Supdtg. Engineer, C.A. A. Irrigation Circle, Chambal, Kota was not a party to the writ petition No. 2973/1988. It has further been submitted that the cases of the workcharge employees are being scrutinised for the purpose of conferring permanent status on them and there is no question of any hostile discrimination.

2. A rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 8.1.1991 and strangely enough the State Government has also replied to the said rejoinder on 8.2.1991 wherein they have again asserted that the petitioner being not a registered body is not entitled to file this writ petition. It has further been submitted that similar matter is pending in the Supreme Court. It has further been emphasised in the rejoinder that there is a proviso in Rule 3 which says that nothing in these Rules shall entitle any workcharge employee, categorised permanent or semi permanent to claim the status or benefit of permanency to which a regular Government employee is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules.

3. Record of the case has been perused. Arguments have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Akhil Bhartiya Shoshit Karmchari Sangh v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298 wherein it has been held as under:-

"A technical point is taken in the counter affidavit that the 1st petitioner is unrecognised association and that, therefore, the petition to that extent is not sustainable. It has to be over-ruled. Whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Article 32. Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad based and p