Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. LP.A. No. 710 of 2004 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 1939 of 2003*. L.P.A. No. 836 of 1997 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.5.1997 passed by the writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 2524 of 1996t. 2. The subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 1939 of 2003 was the decision dated 26th June, 2002 by which the promotions of the petitioners in the said writ petition to the posts of Clerk/Assistant with effect from 1 st June 1973 were cancelled. It appears to have been admitted in the writ petition and in respect whereof no dispute has been raised before us that the writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1939 of 2003 were originally engaged as majdoors in the work-charge establishment on 24th April, 1968. Thereafter they were promoted to the post of Clerk/Assistant with effect from 1st June, 1973, which promotion/ appointment was regularised thereafter. 3. By the impugned order dated 26th June, 2002 the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1939 of 2003 were reverted back to the original post of majdoor in the work-charge establishment holding out principally that promotion in work-charge establishment is not permissible and on top of that promotion in the permanent establishment of an employee working in an inferior post in the work-charge establishment is also not permissible. By the impugned order dated 8th April, 2003 the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 26th June, 2002 was quashed. 4. In C.W.J.C. No. 2524 of 1996 almost on identical facts the writ petitioners failed to succeed before the writ court. Accordingly, the writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2524 of 1996 preferred L.P.A. No. 836 of 1997; whereas the State Government preferred L.P.A. No. 710 of 2004 against the order dated 8th April, 2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1939 of 2003. 5. Inasmuch as, the facts of these cases are almost identical and accordingly law applicable thereto are also identical, we have decided to dispose of both appeals by this common judgment. 6. There is no dispute that there is a great difference between work-charge establishment and permanent establishment of the State. Whereas permanent establishment is permanent and will continue for ever; the work-charge establishment is for a temporary purpose to complete the work for which the establishment has been established. 6. There is no dispute that there is a great difference between work-charge establishment and permanent establishment of the State. Whereas permanent establishment is permanent and will continue for ever; the work-charge establishment is for a temporary purpose to complete the work for which the establishment has been established. Accordingly, a person engaged to discharge the duties of a work-charge establishment will loose his requirement the moment the work of that establishment would come to an end. In those circumstances admittedly there is a great difference between an employee working in the work-charge establishment and an employee working in the permanent establishment. Their rights and status are fundamentally different. 7. However, while issuing the order impugned in these writ petitions the authorities concerned incorrectly proceeded on the basis that the petitioners in those writ petitions were employees of the work-charge establishment. 8. On 4th December, 1949 the State Government incorporated in P.W.D. Code volume-1, the condition of work-charge establishment and thereby provided, amongst others, that the post of work-charge establishment which are of permanent nature, i.e. required for 12 months in a year and for long and indefinite period, will be made permanent and included in the permanent establishment and men employed on these posts, having one years approved service will be included amongst permanent Government employees. 9. Subsequent thereto Government of Bihar published a Gazette notification on 16th April, 1950 and thereby notified its decision dated 15th April, 1950 to incorporate the following, as a rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India"all the enactments, rules and orders, whether made under any enactment or otherwise, which regulated the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs which are now the affairs of the State of Bihar and which were in force immediately before the 26th January, 1950, shall until provision is made by or under an act of the State Legislature, to regulate such recruitment and conditions of service, be in force as if they had been made by virtue of the power under the said proviso". 10. In view of the said notification published on 26th April, 1950 the revised condition service of work-charge establishment as decided by the Government on 4th February, 1949 became legislative service rules pertaining to the employees of the work-charge establishment of the Government. 10. In view of the said notification published on 26th April, 1950 the revised condition service of work-charge establishment as decided by the Government on 4th February, 1949 became legislative service rules pertaining to the employees of the work-charge establishment of the Government. As a result of such decision of the Government which has not yet been cancelled or repealed by any enactment made by the Legislature of the State, an employee working in the work-charge establishment for a period of more than one year is deemed to have became a member of the permanent establishment of the State Government. 11. In the writ petitions, dealt with under the impugned judgments, it was not in dispute that the petitioners therein worked for more than one year in the same post in the work-charge establishment before being promoted to the post of Clerk/Assistant. It was not the contention in the impugned orders, as were challenged in the writ petitions, nor it was the contention in the writ petitions or before us that majdoors, i.e. Class IV employees, cannot be promoted to the post of Clerk/Assistant belonging to Class III by virtue of any decision of the Government. In view of the decision of the Government referred to above each of the writ petitioners became a permanent Government employee immediately on completion of one year from joining as majdoor in the work-charge establishment. Since then they became, by fiction of a law, employees of the permanent establishment, although as majdoors, i.e. Class IV employees. There, therefore, appears to be no just reason for holding out in the orders impugned in the writ petitions that promotions granted to the petitioners were inappropriate. 12. For the reasons as above while we dismiss L.P.A. No. 710 of 2004, allow L.P.A. No. 836 of 1997 and set aside the judgment and order dated 8th May, 1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2524 of 1996 and at the same time quash annexure-1 dated 16th July, 1994 being the subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 2524 of 1996. There shall be no order as to cost. 13. Let it be recorded that appellant no. 3 in L.P.A. No. 836 of 1996 has died and his death is recorded.