Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is widow of late Binod Kumar, an Extension Officer in the District Rural Development Agency, Chatra (in short DRDA), who died on 26.09.2002 during service tenure. The petitioner has made a claim for gratuity of the deceased employee and also quashing of the order dated 28.04.2009, Annexure-6, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand. 3. The contention of the petitioner based upon a letter dated 29.07.2004 bearing memo no. 1291 of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Ranchi to the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is that another person Sri. Ali Asad, who was an Statistical Officer (Anveshak), was allowed gratuity of 12 months by the order of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Rural Development Agency. 4. According to the petitioner, some employees of DRDA have also been absorbed in view of the decision of the resolution no. 4916 dated 07.09.2005 of the State of Jharkhand, reference of which has been made in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010(1) AIR(Jhar) 660. It is submitted that petitioner's case for gratuity has, therefore, wrongly been rejected. 5. It is the categorical stand of the respondents' counsel based upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Rural Development Department that the petitioner's husband was appointed as Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) under the integrated Rural Development Programme, which is sponsored programme and the establishment expenditure of the employees appointed under IRDP was initially borne in the ratio of 50:50 proportion by the Central and the State Government. After introduction of DRDA Scheme from 01.04.1999, 100% establishment expenditure of the Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) was borne by the State Government solely. As far as the Statistical Investigator of DRDA is concerned, the establishment expenditure was borne by the DRDA Administration Scheme, which is a centrally sponsored scheme financed by the Central and the State Government in 75:25 ratio. Reference has also been made to Annexure-3 of the writ petition dated 29.07.2004 of payment of gratuity to Statistical Investigator, which appears to have been paid by the DRDA Administration Scheme. Reference has also been made to Annexure-3 of the writ petition dated 29.07.2004 of payment of gratuity to Statistical Investigator, which appears to have been paid by the DRDA Administration Scheme. The respondents have taken a stand based upon advice of the Finance Department that since the service of late employee was not counted as pension linked service, gratuity payment is not admissible to him. The same advice has been given to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra through impugned order dated 28.04.2009. 6. The petitioner in his rejoinder has submitted that late employee was selected by the Bihar Subordinate Selection Council in December, 1988 and other officers also selected in the same process got benefit of Government scheme but only Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce) DRDA have been deprived from the Government Scheme. The claim of the petitioner's husband has been rejected only on the ground that he was not Statistical Investigator rather appointed as Extension Officer. It is further contended that service conditions of the employee of the DRDA like appointment, promotion, posting, transfer, pension, gratuity etc. are regulated by the Governing Body of the DRDA with the approval of the respective State Governments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the claim for gratuity was approved by the Managing Board of the DRDA, the same has been rejected by the State Government through impugned letter dated 28.04.2009. A reference has been made to the order passed in CWJC No. 6543 of 1991 directing the State Government to take a final decision relating to the employees of the DRDA. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again referred to the resolution of 07.09.2005 whereunder Panchayati Raj Department has absorbed the said persons on the post of Gram Panchayat Supervisor. 7. Having considered the relevant materials and submissions of the parties, from the material facts, it appears that the husband of the petitioner died on 26.09.2002 while working under the DRDO as Extension Officer (Industry and Commerce). Till that date service of the husband of the petitioner was not absorbed in the State Government. Even after the said date, no decision is shown to have been taken in respect of absorption of the service of persons in the cadre of Extension Officer under the DRDA. Till that date service of the husband of the petitioner was not absorbed in the State Government. Even after the said date, no decision is shown to have been taken in respect of absorption of the service of persons in the cadre of Extension Officer under the DRDA. The respondent-State has, therefore, taken a stand that since service of the husband of the petitioner was not pensionable, she is not entitled to payment of gratuity. If it has been paid to some employee by the DRDA that could not create liability upon the State Government, if the service of the employee was not under the State Government and pensionable under the provision of pension Rules. The respondent-Managing Board of the DRDA, Chatra, however, may take a decision to allow the claim of gratuity to the petitioner. The writ petitioner has, therefore, failed to make out any ground to interfere to the impugned order dated 28.04.2009, Annexure-6. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to claim before the DRDA, Chatra for payment of gratuity, if the same is being paid to any other employee. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Petition disposed of.