Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner who was appointed on compassionate ground was terminated vide order dated 14th December 96. She moved before this Court against the order of termination in C.W.J.C. No. 439/97, wherein this Court, vide order dated 1st May,97 gave liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority along with relevant materials to establish that she was also entitled for appointment. The petitioner while moved before the authorities and filed representation on 1st July 97 though it was recommended by the higher authorities, the same has been rejected, vide order dated 4th May99 (Annexure-11), which has been challenged by filing amendment petition (I.A.No. 11387/99). 2. The sole question to be determined in this case is whether a dependent of a person working in a Workcharged Establishment is entitled for compassionate appointment on his death or not. 3. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner, Late Shankar Chaudhary was engaged on daily wage in the Workcharged Establishment of State in its Public Health Engineering Deptt. Sub-sequently, he was appointed in the scale of Rs. 350-425/- to the post of Walkup Khalasi, vide Office Order No. 110 dated 28th March, 1988. However, such appointment was made in the regular scale in the Workcharge Establishment. 4. He (husband of the petitioner) died on 5th October94 while in service and functioning in the Workcharged Establishment, whereinafter the petitioner (widow) applied for compassionate appointment. The case of the petitioner was placed before the District Compassionate Committee and on its recommendation, she was appointed on 20th July 96 to the post of Office Peon. It appears that the matter was subsequently taken up by the Collector, Munger who, vide his letter no. 1331 dated 14th December 96, informed the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Munger under whom the petitioner was appointed, therefore appointment was found to be illegal. Giving reference of the aforesaid order, the impugned order of termination contained in Memo No.825 dated 26th December 96 was issued. 5. The Respondent No.5 in his counter affidavit has taken plea that the scheme of compassionate appointment is applicable only to those Government servants who die prematurely during his employment. The husband of the petitioner cannot be stated to be a Government servant as he was merely working in the Workcharged Establishment. 5. The Respondent No.5 in his counter affidavit has taken plea that the scheme of compassionate appointment is applicable only to those Government servants who die prematurely during his employment. The husband of the petitioner cannot be stated to be a Government servant as he was merely working in the Workcharged Establishment. The benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be provided to the dependent of those who worked in the Workcharged Establishment. 6. In this connection, reference has been made on letter no.917 dated 11th May 94 issued by Chief Engineer-cum- Special Secretary, wherein guidelines for compassionate appointment, have been brought to the notice of the Regional Chief Engineer; Superintending Engineer; and Executive Engineer of Public Health Engineering Department. Therein, it is stated that those who are defined as "Government employees" working against sanctioned posts, their dependents are entitled for compassionate appointment. 7. Admittedly, the State of Bihar has laid down guidelines/scheme for appointment on compassionate ground from amongst the dependents of Government employees died in harness. The last scheme was circulated vide Circular No. 3/C 2-2069/90 P. 13293 dated 5th Oct. 1991. The said scheme is equally applicable to the employees of the State whose services are temporary. 8. The State of Bihar laid down conditions of service of persons working in the Workcharge Establishment. Initially, it was circulated vide Finance Departments Memo No. 1344 dated 4th February, 1949, which reads as follows: "(Vide F.D. Memo No. 1344 dated 4.2.1949) SubjectRevised conditions of service of Work-charged establishment. The existing distinction between work-charged establishment temporary and permanent establishment and daily labour as given in the P.W. Code and P.W.D. Accounts Code will be maintained but the conditions of service of work-charged establishment will henceforth be identical with those of temporary Government servants. The posts in work-charged establishment which are of permanent nature that is required for 12 months in the year and for long and indefinite period will be made permanent and included in permanent establishment and the non-employed on these posts, having one years approved service will be included amongst permanent Government employees. The posts in work-charged establishment which are of permanent nature that is required for 12 months in the year and for long and indefinite period will be made permanent and included in permanent establishment and the non-employed on these posts, having one years approved service will be included amongst permanent Government employees. Details in this connection are being worked out and till this is done the conditions of service applicable, to temporary Government servants will apply to all work-charged posts." (quoted from page 137; Volume lI of Bihar P.W.D. Code, published by Malhotra Bros.) The aforesaid guidelines now have been made and deemed to be a rule framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in pursuance of Appointment Departments Notification No. 5555-31-27/230A dated 15th April 1950 published in Bihar Gazette on 26th April, 1950 issued under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under the 1949 Rules, it has been stipulated that the persons working in the Workcharge Establishment will be guided by conditions of service identical with those of temporary Government servants. Such stipulation having laid down under statutory rule, I hofd that the guidelines/ scheme issued by the State for compassionate appointment, which is applicable to temporary Government Servants is also applicable to the employees working in the Workcharged Establishment and their dependents. 9 Thus, the question is answered in favour of petitioner, against the Respondents. 10. The petitioner having right to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground her husband having died in harness: she having duly selected and recommended by the District Compassionate Committee, the authorities should not have terminated her service on the ground that she was not entitled for compassionate appointment, being dependent of a Workcharged employee. 11. For the reasons aforesaid and the impugned order dated 26th December, 1996 being illegal, I set aside the said order, as also the consequential order of rejection dated 4th May 99 Annexure-11 to I.A.No. 11387/99). The petitioner stands reinstated to the post, she was appointed on 20th July 96 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary to be paid in favour of petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.