IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5601 of 2010 1. Bihar Rajkiya Nalkoop Karmchari Sangh, Through Its General Secretary, Ramesh Prasad Singh, S/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Narang Rampur, P.S.- Narang Rampur, Distt.- Vaishali Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Under Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Project Co-Ordinator, Tubewell Prabhag, Bihar, Patna 3/ 08/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be an organization representing the interests of the members of the Bihar Rajkiya Nalkoop Karmchari Sangh through its General Secretary. The controversy involved is whether their period of service in the Tubewell Corporation before absorption in the Water Resources Department shall be counted for purposes of A.C.P. or not. During the pendency of the writ application, the respondents have passed a fresh order on 1.12.2010. It allows the benefit of A.C.P. to those who were in the regular establishment of the Tubewell Corporation and were absorbed in that capacity under the Water Development Corporation. The writ 2 application has therefore become infructuous with regard to that category. The second category consist of those under the State Government in work charge capacity transferred to the Tubewell Corporation in that capacity and who subsequently came to be absorbed in the Water Development Corporation. Their period of work charge service has been directed not to be considered for purposes of A.C.P. The third category consisted of those appointed on daily wages or work charge establishment in the Water Development Corporation subsequently regularized, but whose period prior to regularization was not to be taken into consideration for purposes of A.C.P. The order dated 1.12.2010 has to be construed according to the guidelines issued on 23.3.2006 amending the A.C.P. Rules 2003 which provides in Clause 5 that the period of service spent in the work charge establishment was required to be taken into account for computing eligibility of A.C.P. No further discussion is required to hold that the order dated 1.12.2010 to the extent contrary to the same is not sustainable with regard to the second category of persons. 3 Insofar as the third category is concerned, it can be subdivided into two categories-daily wage and work charged establishment. The latter are again covered by the 2006 amendment of the A.C.P. Rules and the order is unsustainable to that extent. Insofar as daily wagers are concerned, there appears no difference between them and work charged employees as both are not in regular service. There does not appear to be sufficient justification to discriminate between the two classes for grant of A.C.P. in view of the discussions contained in (2009) 3 SCC 661 (Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram) at para-21 as follows:- “21. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time-bound promotional scales/promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years' regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work-charged service.” The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)