P. B. Bajanthri, J.—The present Letters Patent Appeal No. 744 of 2021 filed on behalf of the State in which appellants have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.02.2021 passed in CWJC No. 18826 of 2018*. Grievance of the respondents no. 1 to 6 in the writ petition are as under:—

“That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the past services of petitioners rendered in non-Gazetted Capacity for pension and gratuity after superannuation from Government Service they discharged duties for more than 30 years and be further pleased to quash the Memo No. 6632(S) 28.08.2018 (Annexure-18) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which the order/direction dated 02.05.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14304 of 2015 (Annexure-15) has been misinterpreted and refused to follow the direction for payment of pension and other retiral dues to retired employees under Rule 59 of Bihar Pension Rule 1950 including the Government decision contained in Memo No. Pen-1024/69/11779-F dated 12.08.1969 and arbitrarily and unlawfully rejected and disposed of the representation filed by the petitioners on 17.05.2018 in pursuant to Hon’ble Court’s direction dated 02.05.2018.”

2. The learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition while taking note of certain decisions like Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in 2015 (2) PLJR (SC) 437 [: 2015 (2) BLJ 108 (SC)]. The grievance of the contesting respondents are that they were initially appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1984 and their services were regularized in the month of October, 2013. Pursuant to the State Government policy decision dated 16.03.2006. For non consideration of contesting respondents grievance relating to counting of service rendered as a daily wager during the period from the year 1984 to 2013 has been turned down on 28.08.2018, thus the writ petition CWJC No. 18826 of 2018 was filed. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition while redressing the grievance of the contesting respondents to the extent that they are entitle to count daily wage service towards fixation of pension. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that daily wagers are not entitled to count their service or compute the service towards fixation of pension in the light of provisions of Bihar Pension Rules, scheme of regularisation dated 16.03.2006 read with clause imposed in the order of regularisation dated 30.10.2013 (petitioners regularisation). It is submitted that as long as clause-5 of the scheme of regularisation dated 16.03.2006 is not questioned by the petitioners and so also clause in their order of regularisation dated 30.10.2013 (Clause-2) they are not entitle count such daily wage service towards fixation of pension. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in allowing the grievance of the contesting respondents. He is also relying on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bhagwan Singh (Full Bench) reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 229 [: 2014 (4) BLJ 46 (SC)] (Para -14) it reads as under:—

“14. Keeping in view the above provisions, we are of the opinion that the service rendered by the petitioner as daily wage Choukidar under the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Gaya cannot be said to be a service for which the petitioner was paid from the general revenue of the State Government or the service rendered on a substantive post in a permanent establishment. Such service, although was followed by absorption on regular establishment, will not qualify for pension. Therefore, the service rendered by the petitioner, as daily wage employee from April 1973 to December 1978, was not a pens