CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The short question, which has arisen in the present appeal, is: whether the family members of a deceased employee, who was appointed in a work charged establishment and died, while working as a work charge employee, would be entitled to family pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950?

2. The State of Bihar and its officials have preferred this appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this High Court, being aggrieved by an order of learned Single Judge, dated 27.8.2014, passed in CWJC No. 5159 of 2013, whereby the learned single Judge, relying on another decision of a single Judge of this Court in the case of Most. Baby Devi vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 910, has allowed the writ application and directed the respondent State to consider granting of family pension and other benefits to the writ petitioner, which she may be entitled to, by treating her husband, who was a work charged employee, as a regular employee under them.

3. The facts over which there is no dispute between the appellants and the respondent are that the husband of the respondent, Sushil Paswan, was initially appointed, on 9.9.1982, on muster roll, by an order issued by the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Gaya, for a period of six months. He was, later on, taken as a work charged employee on the post of Chowkidar by a letter, dated 1.2.1983, issued by the Executive Engineer of the said Department. He died on 27.4.2009. His widow, who is the respondent in the present appeal, approached this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on 8.3.2013, giving rise to CWJC No. 5159 of 2013, seeking a direction to the State of Bihar and its officials to pay to her the family pension, gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment and general provident fund amount, consequent upon the death of her husband, by treating the service of her deceased husband as that of a regular employee.

4. Before we deal with the stand taken by the respondent-State of Bihar in their counter affidavit in the writ proceedings, it has to be kept in mind that till the date of death of the husband of the respondent, he had been serving as a work charged employee inasmuch as his service had not, in fact, been regularized nor is there any pleadings on record to demonstrate that the respondent’s husband had ever claimed regularization on the basis of his continuous service as a work charged employee.

5. In their counter affidavit, the appellants contended that under the relevant scheme of the State Government, a person, who had completed continuous service for a term of five years before cut-off date of 21.8.1984, would be eligible to be absorbed in regular establishment and since the husband of the petitioner had not completed five years of service before the aforesaid cut-off date, he was, in terms of the said scheme, not treated to be eligible for being absorbed in regular service. It was the specific case of the State of Bihar, in the writ petitioner, that since the deceased husband of the respondent was not absorbed as a regular employee, her claim for payment of death-cum-retirement benefits was not admissible.

6. In reply to the counter affidavit, the respondent herein, as writ petitioner, relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court, in Kosi Project Workers Association vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007(1) PLJR 358, to contend that in the light of the decision in Kosi Project Workers Association (supra), her husband was required to be treated as a regular employee of the State Government from the date he had completed one year of regular service in work charged establishment.

7. In support of her claim, the respondent herein also relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court, in Most. Baby Devi vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2012 (3) PLJR 910. In Most. Baby Devi (supra), taking note of the fact that the State of Bihar had fixed the cut-off date as 11.1.1990 f