JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed on 16.12.1959 in the work charge establishment of the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar where he worked till 17.10.1977. On 18.10.1977, he was relieved from North Koel Construction Division -1 and thereupon, he was appointed as Dumper Operator in B.C.C.L, Dhanbad. Further case of the petitioner is that while he was under the employment of B.C.C.L, he developed some trouble in his both eyes, as a result of which, he was compelled to opt for V.R.S. Accordingly, he was made to retire on 25.6.2003 under the scheme of V.R.S. Thereafter the petitioner asked the authorities of the B.C.C.L to release his retiral benefit and also made request for giving employment to one of his dependents as he had lost his eye sight in course of duty but the authority did not pay any heed to the request and, therefore, he filed a writ petition, bearing W.P.(S) No.4349 of 2006 whereby prayer was made to direct the authorities of the B.C.C.L to pay retiral dues and to give employment to the dependent of the petitioner and also made a prayer for direction to the State of Jharkhand to pay retiral benefit which is payable to him for the services rendered by him in the State of Jharkhand. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the concerned authorities so that the authorities may take decision in the matter. Thereupon, the petitioner made representation before the authority of Jharkhand as well as B.C.C.L. The claim of the petitioner relating to payment of retiral dues by the State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefit as he was under the employment of work charged establishment and the said order was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter no.3750 dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure 4). Similarly, prayer of the petitioner was also rejected by the authority of the B.C.C.L under an order as contained in Annexure 3 holding therein that the petitioner since has been given entire benefits, which he was entitled to under the scheme of V.R.S, he is no more entitled to any benefit. Similarly, prayer of the petitioner was also rejected by the authority of the B.C.C.L under an order as contained in Annexure 3 holding therein that the petitioner since has been given entire benefits, which he was entitled to under the scheme of V.R.S, he is no more entitled to any benefit. Being aggrieved with those orders, this writ petition has been filed praying therein to direct the authority of the B.C.C.L to give retiral benefit for the period from 25.6.2003 to 1.5.2006 as the petitioner was forcibly made to retire pre-maturely and also to direct them to give employment to the dependent of the petitioner and to direct the State of Jharkhand/State of Bihar to pay retiral benefit for the period from 16.12.1959 to October, 1977 during which period the petitioner rendered his service under the Water Resources Department, State of Bihar/Jharkhand. A counter affidavit has been field on behalf of B.C.C.L wherein it has been stated that on seeking voluntary retirement, petitioner was allowed to retire under the scheme of V.R.S and all the benefits which the petitioner is entitled to under that scheme have already been given and that since the petitioner sought voluntary retirement, he is not entitled to have his dependent employed in the establishment of B.C.C.L under the scheme of compassionate appointment. As per counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefit as the petitioner had never been employed on the substantive and permanent post, rather he was employed in a work charged establishment and as such, in view of the Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefit. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision rendered in a case of Ram Prasad Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand [( 2005(3) JLJR 38 (F.B) even the work charged employees are entitled to retiral benefit and after their death, their heirs/dependents are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits, such as, pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. and therefore, the order under which the authorities of the Respondent-State rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral dues for the period when he worked in the Water Resources Establishment is illegal, untenable and is fit to be set aside. and therefore, the order under which the authorities of the Respondent-State rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral dues for the period when he worked in the Water Resources Establishment is illegal, untenable and is fit to be set aside. Having gone through the said decision it never appears that their Lordships have never held in unqualified terms that the worked charge employees are entitled to retiral benefit rather it has been held hereunder: “ The work charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their heirs/dependents 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 fulfils the requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment. Thus, it is evident that their Lordships have held that work charged employees are entitled to benefit provided they have worked against the post in a regular scale of pay and that otherwise they fulfill requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment but here, in the instant case, the petitioner had never come with the case that the petitioner had worked against a post in regular pay scale and that apart, under order as contained in memo no. PC. Pen.1044/70-1050F dated 18.2.1974 issued by the Finance Department, if Government Servant selected for appointment in an autonomous body (including public undertakings) on the basis of his own application, the transfer should not be deemed to be in the public interest and the Government will not accept any liability to pay any retirement benefits or for carry forward of leave for the period of service rendered under the Government. It has been specific stand of the State of Jharkhand that on the request made by the petitioner, the petitioner was relieved on 18.10.1977 and, therefore, the petitioner in terms of the circular, referred to above, is not entitled to have pensionary benefit either from the State of Jharkhand or from the State of Bihar. Similarly, the petitioner is also not entitled to have employment of his dependent upon becoming a disabled on account of losing sight of both his eyes as the petitioner had himself sought voluntary retirement and as such, dependent of the petitioner is not entitled to have appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment. Similarly, the petitioner is also not entitled to have employment of his dependent upon becoming a disabled on account of losing sight of both his eyes as the petitioner had himself sought voluntary retirement and as such, dependent of the petitioner is not entitled to have appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, it is dismissed.