JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing the part of the order as contained in memo dated 22.03.2011 by which it has been ordered that the period rendered by the petitioners as daily rated employees will not be counted for the purpose of continuity in service. 2. Further prayer has been made to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 05.02.1981 so far as it relates to petitioner No.1 and w.e.f. 1.4.1981 so far as it relates to the petitioner No.2 i.e. the date on which both the petitioners have been engaged as daily rated employees on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MJC No.606 of 2000 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C)No.16784-16820 of 2000. In pursuance to the said order, the order dated 22.03.2011 has been passed regularizing the services of the petitioners w.e.f. The date of their joining. 3. Prayer has also been made to count the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 5.2.1981 & 1.4.1981 respectively and to release entire difference of salary from the said date till 22.03.2011 along with penal interest and other consequential benefits. Factual Matrix 2. The petitioner No.1 joined his service as daily rated employee w.e.f. 5.2.1981 while petitioner No.2 has joined his service w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and thereafter, the services of the petitioners have been taken into work charge establishment and since the date of their initial appointment, both the petitioners have been discharging their duties. 3. It is stated that the State Government has issued one Circular on 18.06.1993 providing therein that the daily rated employees, if appointed prior to 01.08.1985, and have worked regularly for a period of 240 days, they will be given preference in the matter of appointment. 4. Though the petitioners were working since 1981 but the services were regularized from 23.3.2011 and not from the date of their initial appointment and hence this writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Saurav Shekhar argues that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary to the extent that services have been regularized from 23.03.2011. 5. Though the petitioners were working since 1981 but the services were regularized from 23.3.2011 and not from the date of their initial appointment and hence this writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Saurav Shekhar argues that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary to the extent that services have been regularized from 23.03.2011. 5. Learned Counsel submits that as the services of the petitioners were regularized on sanctioned post with regular pay scale in view of the catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court, the petitioners are entitled for pensionery benefits and as such the impugned order to that extent be quashed and set aside and direction may be given to the respondents for considering their case for pensionary/retiral benefits which accrued to them in view of the settled principles of law that they are working as work charged employee since last 13 years and their services have been regularized on sanctioned post for regular pay scale. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and argues that the petitioners are not entitled for any pensionary benefits as they have not rendered 10 years of continuous service after regularization which is mandatory requirement. 7. Learned Counsel further submits that work charged employees are not governed by the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and as such they cannot claim any benefit as per the said Rule. 8. Learned Counsel further argued that as per Rule 61 of Pension Rules which speaks that service does not qualify unless a Government servant holds substantively a post on a permanent establishment and as such not entitled for the pensionary benefits. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration in view of the catena of decisions rendered by this Hon'ble Court in its full Bench decision, reported in [2005] 3 JLJR 38/[2005] 3 JCR 9 “Ram Prasad Singh Vrs. State of Jharkhand” has categorically held that work charge employees are entitled for retiral benefis. State of Jharkhand” has categorically held that work charge employees are entitled for retiral benefis. The services of the petitioners have to be counted from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of pension and not from the date of regularization as the condition of service of the work charged employees has been made similar to that of temporary Govt. employees, under Rule 1949, they have a right to claim and get such benefit to which a temporary Govt. employees entitled. As the State Government has already decided to provide benefit of pension to the temporary Govt. employees employed under different schemes vide Memo No. Pen 1024/69/11779-F, dated 12th August, 1969. Such scheme having been framed by the State, the respondents cannot deny similar benefits to the work-charged employees or on their death, to their dependants/heirs, their condition of service being similar to that of temporary employees. 10. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision dated 31.8.2010 in case of “Harbans Lal Vrs. The State of Punjab and others” which has been affirmed by the Apex Court has categorically held: “Once the services of a work-charged employee have been regularized, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularization has not been taken into consideration for determining the qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularized subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged employee have been regularized, he is a public servant like any other servant. After the services of a work charged employee have been regularized, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness and for these reasons the provisions of sub rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” The aforesaid view was further reiterated by this Court in the cases of Joginder Singh, Hazura Singh and Nasib Singh (supra). A conjoint reading of the rules, quoted above and the observations of the Full Bench would reveal that it is by now well established that period of service rendered on daily wage/work charges prior to regularization of services is liable to be counted for the purposes of gratuity and pension.” 4. The consistent view of the judgment is that work charge service rendered before regularization, is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. In the instant case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's initial date of appointment after regularization will be the date on which employee takes charge of the post. Once the entire service of a daily wager is to be counted as qualifying service then his date of appointment will relegate back to his initial date of appointment i.e. 05.02.1981 in case of petitioner No.1 and 1.4.1981 in case of petitioner No.2 they cannot be ousted from pension scheme by applying the date of regularization i.e. 22.03.2011. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the whole period of work charge service as qualifying service for pension. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “S. Sumnyan and Others Vrs. Limi Niri & Ors.”, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 791 has held as under: “We may here also appropriately refer to another decision of this Court in G.P.Doval v. Govt. of U.P. wherein this Court held that regularization of the services of a person, whose initial appointment although not in accordance with the prescribed procedure but later on approved by an authority having power and jurisdiction to do so would always relate back to the dates of their initial appointment. Para 13 is reproduced herein below: (SCC p. 341) “13. of U.P. wherein this Court held that regularization of the services of a person, whose initial appointment although not in accordance with the prescribed procedure but later on approved by an authority having power and jurisdiction to do so would always relate back to the dates of their initial appointment. Para 13 is reproduced herein below: (SCC p. 341) “13. … If the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure but later on the appointee is approved making his appointment regular, it is obvious commonsense that in the absence of a contrary rule, the approval which means confirmation by the authority which had the authority, power and jurisdiction to make appointment or recommend for appointment, will relate back to the date on which first appointment is made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. That has not been done in this case.” 12. Similarly, this Hon'ble Court in case of “Shakuntla Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” (W.P.(S)No.1517 of 2008) vide order dated 04.10.2012 taking into consideration the Rules 61 and 63 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules as well as Notification No.12928F dated 04.09.1962 was of the considered view that the period served by the Government servant on temporary or officiating basis against the substantive pensionable post shall be counted for the purpose of pension if service is made permanent or such temporary officiating post is converted into a permanent post. The substantive post existing, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the pension after counting the entire period of services even prior to regularization. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner counting the service of the petitioner for pensionary benefits from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of regularization. The order dated 22.03.2011 memo No.623 is quashed and set aside/modified to that extent. 14. As regards the arrears of salary are concerned, the respondents are directed to take decision in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as that of this Hon'ble Court referred above. 15. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed.