JUDGMENT : Dr. J.N. Dubey, J. This writ petition is directed against the ORDER :dated 14th February, 1987 of the respondent no. 5 the Director of Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna deciding the inter-se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents nos. 4 to 48. 2. It appears that the petitioners were appointed as work sarkar in Barauni Thermal Power Station during 1962 to 1987. They are absorbed on the post of Store Assistants on 4th March, 1975. The respondent No. 3 while preparing the seniority list of Store Assistants has not taken into consideration the services rendered by the petitioners on the post of work sarkar. Feeling aggrieved they have filed this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Store Assistant should be determined taking into consideration their entire service and not from the date of their absorption in the cadre of the Store Assistants. In other words according to him, the period for which the petitioners, worked on the post of Work Sarkar should also be taken into consideration for determining their seniority in the cadre of the Store Assistants. I find no substance in this argument of the learned counsel. It is now well settled that while deciding the seniority in the cadre of the Store Assistant the period spent in Work Charge Establishment cannot be taken into consideration. 5. In C.W.J.C. No. 5765 of 1997, Suresh Prasad Singh vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors., this court held as under :- "It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said direction the petitioners was heard and by a detailed ORDER :it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to seniority on the post of Section Clark in accordance with the provisions laid down in clause-V of the Board's notification dated 8.5.1978 on the ground that the work charged establishment is linked with a particular work under execution for the time being for which there is no sanctioned post. The appointment of erstwhile work charged establishment on being inducted in regular cadre will be treated as fresh appointment and as such no claim of seniority for the earlier work charged period will arise in regular cadre. The appointment of erstwhile work charged establishment on being inducted in regular cadre will be treated as fresh appointment and as such no claim of seniority for the earlier work charged period will arise in regular cadre. This court is of the view that the similar question came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2524 of 1996. The said JUDGMENT : was reported in 1997 (2) P.L.J.R. The learned Judge after relying on the JUDGMENT : of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. page 693, came to the conclusion that the employees on work-charge establishment cannot claim parity of the status which is applicable to the regular establishment and as such they cannot claim seniority." 6. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have specifically stated that inter se seniority of the petitioners and the respondents nos. 4 to 48 has been determined in accordance with rule after inviting objections from all concerned. Relevant paragraph of the counter-affidavit are quoted below :- "That the gradation list of Store Assistants was prepared in accordance with law passing through the entire procedure and in strict compliance of the provisions of law and taking all facts and circumstances into consideration. That before the gradation list was finally prepared and inter se seniority was fixed the committee meant for this purpose went through all the relevant materials, documents papers vide Board office ORDER :no. VII-AS/Mis-2014/86-2386 dated 12.5.86 and was communicated to all concerned including the petitioners vide memo no. 599 dated 12.5.86. That a copy of the so prepared gradation list was again sent to all officers concerned for circulation from their end also amongst the concerned persons vide letter no. 148 dated 14.12.87. That a draft gradation list was also circulated by the E.S.E. (S&P) Bihar State Electricity Board vide letter no. 236 dated 4.2.84 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition) inviting comments from the person concerned within 21 days. That statement made in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition is not correct. The petitioners were absorbed and temporarily appointed as Store Clerks from Work Sarkar with effect from the dates they joined the post of Store Clerk vide O.O. no. 146 dated 4.3.75 (Annexure-1) and not from the date when they were initiated. That statement made in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition is not correct. The petitioners were absorbed and temporarily appointed as Store Clerks from Work Sarkar with effect from the dates they joined the post of Store Clerk vide O.O. no. 146 dated 4.3.75 (Annexure-1) and not from the date when they were initiated. That statement made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition is not correct and is not accepted. The petitioners were appointed afresh in the regular establishment. The present cadre of the petitioner is in no way related to their previous engagement. The statement otherwise made is not correct and not accepted. Their seniority has been committed from the date of joining the fresh appointment in store wing as Store Clerks. That statement as made in paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition is not correct. The petitioners have wrongly tried to base their case and apply the provisions of section 3 of Board's Notification no. 113 dated 8.5.78 under the powers conferred on it under section 79(c) of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 which stipulates transfer from one cadre to another and which is not applicable in the present case of the petitioners. The relevant section of the said regulation applicable in the case of petitioners is section 5 which envisages that in case of appointment workmen on work-charged establishment to regular establishment appointment will be treated fresh and their position in the seniority list will be above the direct recruits of the same transaction." 7. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed and as such the averments made in these paragraphs remained uncontroverted. Thus, it is clear that the final seniority list was prepared by the respondent no. 3 in accordance with rules and after inviting objections from all concerned. 8. As stated above in Suresh Prasad Singh (supra) this court while deciding the case of the same department has held that absorption of an employee of Work Charged Establishment in regular Establishment amounts to his fresh appointment and as such he is not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of the work done by him in the work charged Establishment. 9. I respectfully agree with the view taken by learned single Judge in Suresh Prasad Singh (supra) and hold that the petitioners are not entitled for any seniority on the basis of their work in the Work Charged establishment. 10. 9. I respectfully agree with the view taken by learned single Judge in Suresh Prasad Singh (supra) and hold that the petitioners are not entitled for any seniority on the basis of their work in the Work Charged establishment. 10. The impugned ORDER :does not suffer from any error, much less an error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No ORDER :as to costs. Ashish N. Trivedi, J. - I agree.