1. We have heard Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.2002 dismissing the writ petition.

2. The husband of the appellant Late Hariram was initially appointed as part-time employee on consolidated sum of Rs. 182/- per month for a period of 8 months. By order dated 1.10.1991 he was appointed as Class IV in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940 and posted in the Government Primary School, Raipuria. He died on 26.10.1995. His wife has been given family pension and other benefits. However, she raised a dispute to count the service rendered to by the deceased husband for the period 30.1.1982 to 1.10.1991. As the relief was not granted, the approached to this Court by way of filing writ petition seeking direction to compute the family pension and gratuity of her husband by treating him to be in service since 30.1.1982 and to pay her all arrears and consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge after referring the various provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules pertaining to pension held that in view of the Rule 171 of the ASH the period for which a person is appointed temporarily on monthly wages cannot be computed for the purpose of pension. The contention with respect to regularisation of the services of the husband of the appellant during the period 1980-1991 was rejected on the ground that no such prayer was ever made while the deceased was in service.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant's husband died after serving for more than 13 years and as such the service period of 1982-1991 ought to have been directed to be regularised and granted pension. It is further submitted that in number of cases where the employee to has worked for a longer period. direction has been given for regularisation of the service. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in R.S. Rawat v. State and Ors., reported in 1993 (1) WLC Pg. 79 ; Smt. Sayari Devi v. State and Ors., reported in 1995 (1) RLR Pg. 87 ; Ismail Khan v. State and Ors., reported in 1986 RLR Pg. 24 and as also Baleshwar Dass v. Stale and Ors. reported in AIR 1981 (SC) Pg. 41 . All the three cases of this Court cited by the learned counsel have no application to the facts of the instant case. All the three cases pertains to the work-charge employees under Rajasthan PWD (B&R) including Gardens. Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964. Under the said rules there are provisions for providing the status of permanent employee on fulfilling certain conditions. It is not in dispute that the appellant's husband was not a work-charge employee. He has worked as a part-time employee during the period 1982-1991. As such the question of giving any direction for regularisation of the service, more particularly, while such an issue was not raised by her late husband during his life time cannot be granted.

4. We do not find arty infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge which warrants interference by Court. The special appeal stands dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed.

*******