The distinction between work-charged and regular employment precludes entitlement to arrears or ACP/MACP benefits without requisite service in a permanent establishment, reinforcing the 'no work no pay' principle.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner from 31.03.2002 to 30.06.2011 and also to grant 1^st and 2^nd ACP as well as 3^rd MACP as per the provisions of applicable law along with statutory interest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on 31.08.1985 in the work- charged establishment by the respondent no. 6 - the Executive Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Khunti Division, Khunti. Thereafter, he was transferred to Tamar Inspection Bungalow vide letter as contained in memo no. 2 dated 02.01.1987 where he joined on 03.01.1987. Subsequently, the respondent no. 6 stopped paying salary to the work-charged employees including the petitioner due to which few similarly situated work-charged employees moved this High Court by preferring a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6826 of 2002. The said writ petition was decided by a Full Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.05.2005 rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2005 (3) JLJR 38 (FB), holding inter alia that the work-charged employees, who had completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and were otherwise eligible, had the right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment, however, the work-charged employees working on daily wages and not holding any post, were not entitled to the said benefit.

3. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the said judgment of the Full Bench rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra) and he was taken over in the permanent establishment vide Office Order No. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Road Circle, Ranchi. The petitioner thereafter retired on 31.12.2018 after completing more than 33 years of service, however, he was not paid 1^st ACP, 2^nd ACP and 3^rd MACP as per the applicable provision. The petitioner filed several representations before the respondents regarding payment of arrears of salary and for grant of ACP/MACP, however, no action was taken by them.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner was in continuous service since his date of joining on 31.08.1985 and was regularized on the post of Chowkidar vide office order dated 20.07.2011 with effect from the date of joining the service, however, payment of salary for the period between 31.03.2002 and 30.06.2011 has not been made to him due to non-allotment of fund and as such, he cannot be deprived of salary for the said period on the principle of ‘no work no pay’.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the engagement of the petitioner in work-charged establishment was temporary in nature and he was disengaged from duty from March, 2002 on the ground that there was no need of manpower as no project was running in the said Division.

6. It is further submitted that pursuant to the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra), the petitioner was taken over in permanent establishment vide Office Order no. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011. The petitioner submitted his joining in permanent establishment on 22.07.2011 and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2018 and as such, he worked in the permanent establishment only for 7 years, 5 months and 9 days. The petitioner did not complete the minimum qualifying period of 10 years of service in permanent establishment and hence, his prayer with respect to grant of 1^st and 2^nd ACP as well as 3^rd MACP is not sustainable in the eye of law. In fact, the petitioner had been removed from the work- charged establishment from March, 2002 and had agai