1. Heard Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State. None appears on behalf of the respondents to press this writ appeal. However, preliminary submission/objection has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. The appellants/State have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22/11/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6454 of 2021 by which learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the writ petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees in the Public Works Department at different points of time prior to 31/12/1988. Subsequently, they continued to discharge their duties as permanent gangmen in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Department Manual. It is pertinent to mention that their engagement at all relevant times remained under the category of daily wage/permanent gangman and not under the Work Charged or Contingency Paid Establishment. Pursuant to the circular issued by the State Government dated 05/03/2008, which provided for regularization of employees engaged prior to 31/12/1988, the services of the writ petitioners were considered for regularization. In compliance thereof, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bemetra Division, issued an order dated 26/08/2008 whereby the services of the writ petitioners were regularized against regular posts. It is submitted that this was the first occasion when the writ petitioners were brought into the regular establishment. Thereafter, the writ petitioners continued to serve in the regular establishment until they attained the age of superannuation and retired on different dates. Upon retirement, pensionary benefits were extended to the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with the length of their regular service, i.e., from the date of regularization on 26/08/2008.

4. The State has taken a specific stand that the writ petitioners were never appointed under the Work Charged or Contingency Paid Establishment and, therefore, the provisions of the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 are not applicable to their case. It is further submitted that there exists a clear distinction between employees appointed under the Work Charged/Contingency Paid Establishment and those engaged as daily wagers or permanent gangmen under the departmental manual. However, reference is also made to the subsequent circular dated 26/05/2018, which provides that in cases where an employee retires before completing the minimum qualifying service of 10 years, the period of service rendered as a daily wager may be taken into account for the limited purpose of completing the qualifying service for pension.

5. The issue relating to the status and entitlement of such employees has been the subject matter of various litigations before this Court. In certain cases, it has been held that permanent gangmen may fall within the ambit of contingency paid employees. The State has challenged such findings by way of writ appeals before the Division Bench. In one such matter, the decision of the Division Bench was further assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 25/02/2022, permitted withdrawal of the said petition with liberty to approach the High Court by filing a review petition. In light of the liberty so granted, the review petition has been preferred by the State seeking reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The primary contention raised is that the writ petitioners were never part of the Work Charged or Contingency Paid Establishment and were regularized only in the year 2008; hence, they are not entitled to the benefits under the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979.

6. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition f