Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The issue involved herein is whether the petitioner is entitled to pension on his retirement from service on the post of Night Guard under the Office of Block Development Officer, Bermo in the District of Bokaro? The respondent no.3, the Additional Collector cum Nodal Officer, Retirement Grievance Cell, Bokaro has however rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order bearing memo no. 668 dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure-7) on the ground that he has put in only 8 years 6 months and 20 days of service on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.2009 and not completed the mandatory 10 years of service as required under the Pension Rules. 3. Some relevant facts of the case which are required to be noticed are indicated herein below:- Petitioner was earlier working under the National Coal Development Corporation as Night Guard at Dhori Dak Bunglow. His services were terminated on 11.10.1979 since the possession of the Dak Bungalow was taken over by the then Government of Bihar. Petitioner has made out a specific case at para 5 and 7 of the writ petition supported by a letter no. 573 dated 13.9.1999 issued by the Block Development Officer, Bermo addressed to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro that he was working in the work charged establishment from 13.10.1979 continuously on the post of Night Guard till 1994. Annexure-2 also indicates that he was paid wages per month at a particular rate from 1979 to February, 1994 and also bonus as a work charged employee. From 1994 wages were stopped. Such contention of the petitioner is accepted by the respondent-State as would appear from para 10 of their counter affidavit filed on 11.1.2012, which is quoted herein below:- “Para 10:- That with regard to statement made in para 5 to 7 of the writ application it is stated and submitted that the petitioner had worked as work charged (Night Guard) and he had got wages till Feb. 1994 along with Bonus as a work charged employee”. 4. Such statement is further corroborated by statement made at para 10 of the reply of the respondents to the rejoinder of the petitioner filed on 4.3. 2013. 1994 along with Bonus as a work charged employee”. 4. Such statement is further corroborated by statement made at para 10 of the reply of the respondents to the rejoinder of the petitioner filed on 4.3. 2013. Incidentally, petitioner had approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 3483 of 1997(R) for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him as a Grade-IV employee and pay proper scale on the strength of his claim that he had been working as Night Guard in Dhori Dak Banglow since 1979. Learned Single Judge by the judgment at Annexure-1 dated 6.7.1999 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents, particularly respondent no. 2 and 3 to take all necessary steps to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondent-State was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.7.2000 in L.P.A. No. 546 of 1999(R), Annexure-4, by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench. Petitioner was taken in regular establishment by Annexure-5, order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro bearing memo no. 5 dated 6.1.2001. 5. On these facts it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) petitioner had remained in work charged establishment right from 1979 and thereafter in regular establishment since 6.1.2001 till the date of his retirement on 31.7.2009; (ii) though there was a clear direction by the learned Single Judge to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith by the judgment dated 6.7.1999, but the respondents delayed the decision till the order of regularization was issued on 6.1.2001. Therefore, if the period of 10 years is to be counted from the date of judgment also, he would have completed the mandatory period before his date of retirement; (iii) it is submitted that even otherwise the petitioner having remained in work charged establishment is entitled to claim Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment apart from G.P.F and Group Insurance amount if he had worked in work charge establishment itself in view of the judgment rendered by the full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & others Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2005(3) JCR 9 (Jhr) (FB). State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2005(3) JCR 9 (Jhr) (FB). Reference has been made to the ratio laid down in the said judgment at para 17 wherein it is also held that the work charged employee who had completed more than 5 years of continuous service against one post in the work charged establishment and is otherwise eligible has right for consideration of his case for taking over the services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of the date of appointment. It is submitted that even otherwise as has been held in para 17(iii), petitioner was entitled for pension had he not been taken in regular establishment from work charged establishment. It is therefore submitted that once the respondent do not dispute that the petitioner has remained in work charged establishment all along till 2001, the ground to deny pension by the respondents is untenable in law as well as on facts. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has defended the impugned order and submitted that regular employee of the State Government is entitled for pension only if he has completed the mandatory period of 10 years of regular service. In the petitioner's case he had only worked for 8 years 6 months and 20 days since he was taken in regular establishment. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed which is proper in the eye of law. 7. I have considered the issue involved herein on the basis of materials on record and also the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. The fact that petitioner has remained in work charged establishment since 1979 till he was taken in regular establishment is not a matter of dispute, as observed herein above as well. From the judgment rendered in the case of petitioner in Annexure-1 also it is obvious from para 6 thereof that respondents had taken work from the petitioner even after 1994 when the salary of the petitioner was stopped. Annexure-2, a communication of the Block Development Officer, Bermo dated 13.9.1999 also supports the contention of the petitioner relating to his work rendered in the work charged establishment and also corroborated by the statement made in para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents as also their reply to the rejoinder of the petitioner, which have been referred to herein above. On the one hand, if the petitioner was regularized from the date of judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the wake of clear direction issued therein, he would have definitely completed 10 years of service in regular service before his retirement i.e. on 31.7.2009. Even otherwise, if the said period of regular service is discounted, then also petitioner has remained for more than 21 years in work charged establishment under the respondents. The claim of the petitioner for pension, therefore is covered even on the basis of ratio laid down by the full Bench judgment in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & others Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others (Supra), specifically para 17, which is quoted herein below :- Para 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 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”. The stand of the respondents to deny pension to the petitioner even after accepting the fact that he had remained in work charged establishment since 1979 till he was taken in regular establishment in 2001 and remained as such in regular establishment till his retirement appears to be inequitable as well. The petitioner having served the respondent-State for a period of 30 years from the initial engagement in 1979, therefore, should be granted the benefit of pension as per the law laid down by the full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & others Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others (supra), which is quoted herein above. State of Jharkhand & others (supra), which is quoted herein above. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.5.2010(Annexure-7), therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and facts and is accordingly, quashed. The respondents are directed to make payment of the admissible pension to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed.