Order Heard the Parties finally. 2. Mr. Shrivastava, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were taken in work charge establishment provisionally on 6.10.1986 vide Annexure-2 and they were retired on attaining the age of 58 years vide Annexure4, but they are not being paid retrial benefits payable to the retired employees under work-charge establishment. He further submitted that though petitioner No.3 could not get any document of his engagement in work-charge establishment but from the letter dated 29.3.2007 Annexure-4 it will appear that he was also treated as work charge establishment employee and he was retired on completion of 58 years. He further submitted that after completion of 58 years, work was taken from petitioners on daily wages and accordingly, they were paid. He relied on a Full Bench Judgment reported in 2005(3) JCR 9 (Jhr.) [: 2005(3) JLJR 38 (F.B.)], Ram Prasad Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous cases. 3. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the respondents, submitted that as per the counter affidavit, petitioner No. 1 Rajbansh Pandey was in muster roll as daily wages in work-charge establishment between 10.3.1973 to 31.3.1975 but from 1.4.1975 he was retrenched along with other daily wages employees. Again he was engaged on 15.1.1980 as Godown Chowkidar in Gumla (Senha) on daily wages basis. Petitioner No.2, namely. Sk. Israij was engaged as daily wager on 31.12.1979 and again in the year 1986 he was engaged on temporary basis vide Memo No. 208 dated 6.10.1986 (Annexure-4). Petitioner NO.3 Sambhu Deo Bhagat was engaged on daily wage basis on 22.8.1982. Therefore, petitioners were engaged on daily wages and were never given any pay scale, rather they worked on muster roll/daily wages basis. No amounts of provident fund, etc. were also deducted. 4. In reply, Mr. Shrivastava submitted that by the said Annexures-2, 3 and 4, it will appear that the petitioners were engaged in work-charge establishment against sanctioned and vacant posts and against pay scale, but in the counter affidavit it is stated that they worked as daily wagers. 5. In paragraph 17 of the said Full Bench judgment of Ram Prasad Singh (supra) it was, inter alia, held as follows:- "17. I, therefore, hold that: (i) The. 5. In paragraph 17 of the said Full Bench judgment of Ram Prasad Singh (supra) it was, inter alia, held as follows:- "17. I, therefore, hold that: (i) The. work-charged employees who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment. But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled. (ii) The dependants of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground; and (iii) The work-charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their heirs/dependants are entitled to claim death-cum-----retiral benefits, such as, pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. apart from G.P.F. and Group Insurance amount, if otherwise fulfills the requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment." 6. There appears to be difference in the said Annexure and the statement made in the counter affidavit 7. In the circumstances, the petitioners are given liberty to file individual representations before the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent No.2), who will look into the matter and examine the records. If he finds that the case of petitioners is fully covered by the judgment of Ram Prasad Singh (supra), he will pass necessary orders applying the said judgment to the petitioners. If he finds that the case of petitioners is not covered by the said judgment, he will communicate the reasons thereof to them. This exercise should be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt production of such representations. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the claim of petitioners. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.