PARIHAR, J. - (1.) WHILE challenging the order dated 16. 3. 1990, the petitioner has claimed semi-permanency on the post of Store Mushi/ldc from the date of his initial appointment, mainly on the ground that he has been performing the duties of LDC/store Mushi right from the beginning.
(2.) AS has come on record, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of work charge helper on 15. 1. 1979. Subsequently, he was declared semi-permanent on the post of Helper w. e. f. 1. 4. 1982 vide order dated 29. 12. 1983. Thereafter, vide order dated 20. 04. 1989 the petitioner was ordered to be absorbed on permanent basis w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985. It was only in pursuance to the order dated 20. 4. 1989 that the impugned letter dated 16. 3. 1990 was issued asking the petitioner to submit his medical certificate for his absorption on permanent basis on the post of helper. There is no dispute that the petitioner is getting salary for the post of helper only since 1979. Mr. Shah, while relying upon the Work Charge Service Rules of 1964, submitted that the petitioner should have been declared semi-permanent on the post on which he has actually performed his duties. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the relevant provisions of the Work Charge Service Rules. There is no post of LDC under the Work Charge Service Rules. The only post of Clerical nature is that of Store Mushi which carries special duties and responsibilities. The post of Store Mushi is also a promotional post under the Rules of 1964. The relevant provisions in regard to declaring semi- permanent is Rule 3 under which a work charge employee can be declared semi-permanent after completion of continuous two years satisfactory service on the post he has worked. There is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner continuously performed the satisfactory duties on the post of Store Munshi. Be that as it may. The petitioner had already been declared semi-permanent on the post of Helper w. e. f. 1. 4. 1982 vide order dated 29. 12. 1983. That order never came to be challenged by the petitioner. Even the order by which he has to be absorbed on permanent basis on the post of Helper has not been challenged so far. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. . ;