JUDGMENT RAVI S. DHAVAN, C.J.:-This case is about a widow of a category IV employee, claiming from the State of Bihar a family pension. Her husband died in service. He was initially employed on what is known as a "work charge" establishment, but he did not remain in this establishment. His masters transferred him out. This circumstance was involuntary to him. Thereafter, he was given a scale of pay. He also received promotion. Thereafter he died. His service was short, very short. He served the state for a little over six years, and he died in harness. His widow claims pension, call it widow's pension or family pension. She was received a cryptic answer that an employee in a work charge establishment cannot get pension. She filed a Writ Petition and did not succeed. Now she has filed a Letters Patent Appeal. It is pleaded on her behalf that the Court was in error. 2. These are the issues before this appellate Court. Again this is a case where the might of the state is ranged against a hapless widow to tell her she was no case, no right to receive a widow's pension. The answer must satisfy administrative justice first; the Court comes later. Has this widow received administrative justice? 3. The State Administration of Bihar if facing many issues it has been taken up with its lowest class employees. Two major issues arise, one of retirement dues not paid, and the other of salaries not paid. This matter is about the first aspect. 4. There is a third category, also long-term employees who claim some status within the government after they had served for long years having been recruited to work charge establishments. When an employment finishes in a work which is completed and the recruitment was made especially for that task, there will be no issues if, businesslike, there will be a clear understanding right from the beginning that the engagement is for the duration of the work only. But, you cannot construct a Bhakranangal project for the entire lifetime of an employee and then tell him his labour was bonded to a work-charge establishment. This will become an issue and it cannot be said that the employee does not have a case. But, you cannot construct a Bhakranangal project for the entire lifetime of an employee and then tell him his labour was bonded to a work-charge establishment. This will become an issue and it cannot be said that the employee does not have a case. The government cannot construct a fertilizer factory and pass a lifetime of a worker by engaging him and retiring him, and then tell him that daily wage is all that he will get between recruitment and retirement. This is incorrect. That liberalization of a free market economy, obliges framing of new policies for short term state employment, policies are yet to be formulated. Then, one cannot engage labour specifically to an establishment the expenditures of which are especially charged, and thereafter, as if by centrifugal force, transfer him out. Would he be in the same establishment? The employee then is given a scale of pay and promotion, would this be a return to a work charge establishment? Was that work charge establishment budgeted for all this? And if he was transferred out, the budget was made for whom? 5. Can one expect that the widow will be told all these issues, and the State administration will wash its hands of her? She desires an answer which survives public accountability. When the Court brought these issues to the notice of learned State counsel, academically he submitted that indeed there are issues which need to be examined as a policy. But, in reality arid practicality, he told the Court that he has received a nasty letter from the head of the Department that the state counsel's job is not to enter into a dialogue, but to say exactly what he has been instructed. This seems unusual. If issues cannot be examined dialectically, a dogmatic stand on behalf of the state against the weakest section of their employees will generate a conflict, a class conflict. This is belligerence. These issues will have to be sorted out for a rational, humane solution. The State cannot create a cancer within itself to fight its lowest class employees. It should not be the style of the State as a body politic. A conflict with one's employees and workers will generate a spark which the administration may not be able to contain. 6. The concept of a work charge establishment is colonial. The State cannot create a cancer within itself to fight its lowest class employees. It should not be the style of the State as a body politic. A conflict with one's employees and workers will generate a spark which the administration may not be able to contain. 6. The concept of a work charge establishment is colonial. It arose out of the Works, on which an empire was built. Within a Plan and outside a Plan, budgeted and not budgeted, these were games played by masters and administrators. The legacy has been left behind. The State Administration should not borrow troubles, but face them with a modern mind. The Court is aware of the nuances of a work charge establishment as they may be prescribed, running from Rule 281 to 283, Bihar Financial Rules, Volume 1. But one answer must be given to all the employees whose work had been charged to an establishment. A procrastinated decision not taken at the right time, or an administration which ran for a favoured few who saw regularization, causes those treated unequally to seek an answer. 7. Fortunately the Chief Secretary was here in another case, along with the Finance Secretary. That case is also a story of an institution which has not been established despite the fact that an Act of Parliament made it an obligation on all states of the nation to work the law. In Bihar the Act was passed in 1988, and since then for implementation of the Act, time has stood still. The Act is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But, that is another matter. 8. The Chief Secretary assured the Court that he will look into this matter, and he will have the matter of long-term employees in work charge establishments studied and examined for a policy solution. The Chief Secretary agreed with the Court that conflict with employees is not an ideal solution. 9. As the Chief Secretary has kept his mind open in examining these matters, the Court has no hesitation in granting a fortnight's adjournment which had been sought. The Court had indicated to the parties that it will deliver an order today in Court, and thus has done so. Put up after a fortnight.