IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18130 of 2009 SMT.RAJKUMARI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04 05.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The husband of the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage in 1986 on the post of Rural Khalasi. The petitioner claims that her husband was then inducted into the work charged establishment in December, 1987. His case for being brought into the regular establishment was pending consideration since then. Unfortunately, her husband was deceased in that status on 16.7.2007. Since the matter was pending consideration with the authorities themselves, the petitioner now pursues the same and the respondents are obliged to consider the issue of regularization and considering the long years of service rendered by him in the work charge establishment, she is entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits. Reliance is placed upon 1996 (7) SCC 113 (Yashwant Hari Katakkar Versus Union of India & Others) and 1995 (6) SCC 227 (A.P. Srivastava (dead by LRS) Versus The Union of India & Others). Learned counsel for the State opposes the application to submit that the petitioner had not been 2 regularized and there was no provision of grant of pension in the work charge establishment. There is no pleading in the writ application that before induction into the work charged establishment from daily wage any procedures were followed of open competitive merit selection. This Court is satisfied that the induction of the deceased husband of the petitioner on a daily wage post was only a prelude to an illegal induction into the Government service through the back door of the work charged establishment. Aware of that position, her husband in his service tenure never pursued any legal remedies for absorption into the permanent establishment. This Court is satisfied that the claim for pension being raised in the writ application is but a subterfuge for what is essentially mentioned in paragraph 14 of the writ application that should he be regularized, it may open the door to be considered for compassionate appointment. The husband of the petitioner never having pursued legal remedies in his life time. The question of giving any direction for consideration of a case of a dead person and passing an order for regularization in respect of such person simply does not arise. Such an order of regularization regarding a dead person shall be a nullity. The reliance upon the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar 3 (supra) and A.P. Srivastava (supra) is mis-conceived. The two judgments cited on behalf of petitioner relate to persons in regular service over long years, but in a temporary capacity, and compulsory retirement of a temporary Government servant who rendered the period of qualifying service under the Pension Rules. The distinction between a work charged establishment and regular establishment has been succinctly explained in paragraphs 6 and 8 of (1997) 2 SCC 517 (State of Rajasthan Versus Kunji Raman):- “6. A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this Court in Jaswant Singh V. Union of India broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to “works.” The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub- head of the estimated cost of the works. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. Thus a work-charged establishment is materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment.” “8. A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a 4 scheme or a “work” and availability of funds for executing it. So far as employees engaged in work-charged establishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the employees of the regular establishment. A regular establishment and a work-charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the persons employed on those establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes. For that reason, if a separate set of rules are framed for the persons engaged in the work-charged establishment and the general rules applicable to persons working on the regular establishment are not made applicable to them, it cannot be said that they are treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is well settled that the Government has the power to frame different rules for different classes of employees. We, therefore, reject the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1993 that clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 2 of RSR are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and uphold the view taken by the High Court.” That substantially distinguishes the case of the petitioner which stands in a class by itself. It is not the case of the petitioner that her husband was temporary Government servant in the regular establishment. There is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)