Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) ONE of the contentions advanced by counsel is that the Petitioner is working in the work charge cadre since June, 2005 and earlier those, who were appointed like him in UIT, Kota, have been granted the benefit of semi - permanent status under Rule 3 (3) of the Work Charge Service Rules, 1964 but the application submitted by the Petitioner has not been considered by the Respondents. Further, the Petitioner also apprehends that the Respondents may terminate his services but there is nothing on record by which his apprehension could be countenanced by this Court. However, so far as the grant of semi -permanent status is concerned, it is always open for the Respondents to consider the same in accordance with law.
(2.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case any further, this Court considers it appropriate that if representation is made by the Petitioner for seeking semi -permanent status under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1964, the same may be considered by the Respondents and appropriate orders may be passed after examining the records in accordance with law within a period of one months thereafter. If the Petitioner finds aggrieved by the decision being communicated, will be at liberty to avail remedy available under law. With these observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.;