ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The matter under reference is whether the services rendered by a work-charged employee is to be taken into account for computing his pension and whether a work-charged employee is, in the first instance, entitled to pensionary and other benefits which are available to a government servant and secondly whether there is any availability of family pension to the widow of such deceased work-charged employee or compassionate appointment to his heirs in case of death during service.

2. A Division Bench of this Court noticed the difference of opinion in the two judgments delivered by two different Division Benches of this Court; one being in Saraswati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in, (2017) 3 PLJR 645, but which was delivered on 21.04.2015 and the other being in The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bimli Devi, though reported in, (2016) 1 PLJR 452, but which was delivered later than Saraswati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) on 24.11.2015. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. Bhagwan Singh (since dead) reported in, (2014) 4 PLJR 229, has not been taken note of in both the aforesaid Division Bench judgments. Apart from the above, the Bench also took note of the fact that there is yet another relevant decision on the issue by the Apex Court in case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi and Ors. reported in, (2009) 7 SCC 205.

3. In order to resolve the difference of opinion by an authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench, the present Full Bench has been constituted.

4. In Saraswati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the widow of a work-charged employee was entitled for the family pension and gratuity on account of services rendered by her husband in a work-charged establishment. In the aforesaid case, the husband of the petitioner (Saraswati Devi) was initially engaged on a daily-wage basis, but later he was treated as an employee in a work-charged establishment and died while in service. The petitioner, his widow, claimed family pension on the ground that her husband had worked for more than 30 years in the department in various capacities, entitling her to be paid family pension and gratuity. The Division Bench, after taking note of the provisions contained in Rules 58 and 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 as well as Memo No. Pen 1024/69/11779F dated 12.08.1969 and Memo No. 1344 dated 04.02.1999 [contained in Bihar Public Works Department Code (in short Bihar P.W.D. Code)], came to the conclusion that a work-charged employee is necessarily to be treated at par with a temporary employee, who is entitled to pension under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and with respect to whom the Government’s decision, contained in memo of 1969, is applicable. In other words, the Bench held that the services of the deceased work-charged employee was pensionable and, therefore, the widow of such employee was entitled to family pension.

5. In the case of The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bimli Devi (supra), another Division Bench of this Court, which also was beset with a similar question, viz., whether the family members of a deceased employee who was appointed in a work-charged establishment would be entitled to family pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, conclusively held that the services of a work- charged employee is substantially and materially different from a government employee, permanent or temporary, and he is not entitled to pension, thereby foreclosing any claim of the family members of such petitioner to claim family pension or compassionate appointment in case of death during service. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Division Bench took note of the provisions contained in Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 as well as the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in Jaswant