JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the both sides. 2. The petitioner Sri Sailendra Bikash Sen was initially appointed as work charged Mohorrar on 10.8.1964. Latex on he was promoted as work Inspector Gr. I in November, 1986, The post of Inspector Gr. I is a regular post in Grade-III under the State of Aruriachal Pradesh. The petitioner has attained the age of 58 years on 31.10.2003 and he was directed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has approached this Court stating inter alia that under the CPWD Rule? which are adopted by the State of Arunahcal Pradesh, an work charged employee is entitled to continue his services till the age of 60 years and as such the said benefits should be extended to the petitioner. The respondent State has filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that the writ petitioner is holding a post of Grade III and the employees holding the post of Grade III are regular employees of the Department getting all the service benefits including regular scale of pay, increments/GPF, Gratuity, Leave encashment etc. They are governed by the Service Rules of the State Government and the age of retirement of the regular employee in the State of Andhra Pradesh is 58 years and accordingly the petitioner was directed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation and in fact the petitioner has retired from service. The respondent-State has further stated that the benefits of CPWD Manual Volume III are meant for Grade-IV employees as there is no other service benefits provided to the work charged employees and hence, the age of superannuation is 60 years in case of non-regular work charged employees in Grade-IV. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter in hand stands covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 55(AP) of 2002 disposed of on 25.4.2003. We have perused the decision given by this Court and find that the question raised in the above writ petition was altogether different. The point in issue was a circular issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for retirement of work charged employees on attainment of 55 years. We have perused the decision given by this Court and find that the question raised in the above writ petition was altogether different. The point in issue was a circular issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for retirement of work charged employees on attainment of 55 years. This Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in a catena of decisions holding that the principles governing the law regarding compulsory retirement cannot be followed in each and every case and the matter is to be examined on individual basis. The work charged employees continuing till the age of 60 years cannot be thrown out on the basis of the alleged policy decision of the State that they will stand retired on attainment of 55 years. The petitioners in this case, cannot be thrown out on attainment of 55 years as they are non-ministerial work charged employees. 4. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: (1) Whether the petitioner is a regular employee or a work charged employee? (2) Whether the petitioner will be governed by the rules and regulations of the State of Arunachal Pradesh or the CPWD Rules in respect of work charged employees? (3) As the petitioner once belonged to the category of work charged employee and though he has been retired in regular manner, will he, be entitled to the benefits of 60 years as provided to. work charged employees? 5. So far the first question is concerned, there is no dispute at the Bar that the petitioner initially joined the services as work charged employee and subsequently he was promoted in the regular manner and at the time of retirement, he was holding a regular post in Grade-III getting all the service benefits. The writ petition is very categorical on the above aspect. 6. So far the second question is concerned, rule provides that in case of work charged employees, the age of retirement is 60 years and the said CPWD rule has been adopted by the State. The State has also come up with an explanation as to why the age has been extended in case of work charged employees by stating that the work charged employees are not entitled to other service benefits like GPF, Gratuity etc. 7. The State has also come up with an explanation as to why the age has been extended in case of work charged employees by stating that the work charged employees are not entitled to other service benefits like GPF, Gratuity etc. 7. So far the third question is concerned, the petitioner no doubt once belonged to the category of work charged employee but by his own admission, the petitioner had been given regular promotion and at present, he is holding regular employment under the State of Arunachal Pradesh in Grade-III. Merely because, the petitioner was initially appointed as work charged employee, we had no justification to extend the benefits of extension of age to the petitioner au is given to the work charged employee as he has been given the benefits of a regular employee. In some other States, the age of retirement of some casual employees in Grade-IV is 60 years but it is 58 years in case of Grade-Ill or Grade-II employees. There is also a quota of Grade-IV employees non-promotion to Grade-Ill and under that quota, some employees are promoted to Grade-III from Grade-IV. As per the rules, a Grade-UI employee after promotion cannot claim the benefits of Grade-IV employee merely because he initially belonged to Grade IV employee. 8. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that as the petitioner was regularly appointed in Grade-III, the benefits of extended age provided to the work charged employees under the CPWD Manual are not available to the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Petition dismissed