IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.48 of 2010 MOST.RAM PARI DEVI W/O LATE THAGA MAHTO R/O VILL.- RAMPUR PARORI (EAST) P.O.- BANCHORI, P.S. AND DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, SUB-AREA ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRCLE, DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTT.- ROHTAS 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, AURANGABAD 5. THE JUNIOR DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, JUNIOR DIVISION, DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 4 4/5/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to pay the family pension to the petitioner on account of the fact that she is widow of one Late Thaga Mahto, who was Work Charge Employee in the Road Construction Department. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that till date of death of Late Thaga Mahto no order of his regularization of service from the Work Charge Establishment to the Permanent Establishment was passed, but then he would proceed on the basis of judgment of the Division Bench in the case of ‘Koshi Project Worker’s Association & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors’, reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 358 to contend that it was the duty of the Government to regularize services of husband of the petitioner. 2 In this writ application question of entitlement cannot be gone into. Husband of the petitioner died as an employee in the Work Charge Establishment and he had never agitated the same before any Court of law in his life time claiming regularization. The concept of deemed regularization as is sought to be enforced by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for payment of retirement benefit unless there is an order in black and white regularizing the services of husband of the petitioner. That being so, claim for payment of family pension is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, Bihar Pension Rule does not recognize services of Work Charge Establishment and is only applicable with the permanent employee under Permanent Establishment. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)