The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of family pension to the widow of a deceased work charge employee based on the length of service and the court's reliance on the ratio in Most. Baby Devi case.

Petitioner is a widow of late Sushil Paswan. Her husband was working on the muster roll in work charge establishment as Choukidar under the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Gaya. He died on 27.4.2009. Now, the widow is claiming benefit of post retrial dues and family pension for herself and her children.

2. Husband of the petitioner was engaged on muster roll on 9.9.1982 by view of Annexure- 1, issued by the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Gaya. He joined the establishment on 1.2.1983 as a Choukidar with a pay scale. He continued to discharge his duties in that capacity till his death rendering about 26 years of service under the respondent State. After the death of the employee, petitioner moved the respondent authorities to pay her benefits by virtue of the period of work her husband had rendered. Since nobody paid any heed, she was compelled to file the present writ application.

3. Stand of the petitioner is that by virtue of a Division Bench decision dated 3.5.2007 rendered in CWJC No.16060 of 2004, which was the case of Subhash Paswan and others vs. the State of Bihar & ors, the husband of the petitioner had to be treated as a regular employee and extended benefit especially when the above position was affirmed even by dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Her plea is that by virtue of the decision rendered in the case of Koshi Project Worker’s Association vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 358 work-charge employees are supposed to be treated as permanent employee after a year. Besides, from time to time the State Government had also issued notifications for regularization of service of work- charge employee and even cut off dates have been extended by virtue of which benefits should have accrued by regularization of service of the husband of the petitioner. If there was omission on the part of the State, the failure is of the State. Even as recent as 17.10.2013, a notification has been issued by the State of Bihar extending the benefit of regularization to such employees. Merely because there is death of the husband of the petitioner prior to issuance of the said notification, the petitioner cannot be left to fend for herself.

4. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision rendered in the case of Most. Baby Devi vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2012(3) PLJR 910. Reliance is on paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said decision, which are reproduced herein below:-

“14. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder submitted that original writ petitioner in CWJC no.4517 of 2007 moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6217 of 2003 for compliance of the Government circular dated 22.10.1984 and resolution dated 23.10.1987, 20.9.1990 issued for regularization of the Work Charge Employees and this Court under orders dated 15.3.2004, Annexure-8 (in CWJC no.4517 of 2007) directed the State-respondents to consider his case for regularization as per the cut-off date for entry in the Work Charge Establishment fixed under Resolution No.6394 dated 23.10.1987 but the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department ignoring the mandate of circular dated 22.10.1984 and resolution dated 23.10.1987, 20.9.1990 passed erroneous order dated 29.3.2006, which was assailed by the original writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.4517 of 2007. During the pendency of C.W.J.C. No.4517 of 2007, on account of ill-luck the original writ petitioner left for heavenly abode on 2.8.2008, as such, even though the right of the original writ petitioner to seek regularization may not be surviving but the widow petitioner no.1 is entitled to enforce her right for grant of family pension. In this connection, learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the another Single Judge in the case of Shambhu Sharan Singh vs. The State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 908. In the case relied upon the deceased employee was appointed by the competent authority as Choukidar in the Work Charge Establishment. While serving in the Work Charge Establishm