JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellants and Sri Prabhakar Sinha, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 2. This intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment dated 22.4.2010 passed by learned Single Judge allowing petitioner-respondents’ Writ Petition No. 21759 of 2010 following judgment in Writ Petition No. 4489 (SS) of 2002 (Hansa Dutt Bahuguna and others v. State of U.P. and another) decided on 5.7.2006. 3. Six petitioner-respondents i.e. Ram Prakash, Pramod Kumar, S.P. Mathur, Chandan Ram, Mukhtar Ahmad and Badan Singh filed Writ Petition No. 21759 of 2010 seeking a mandamus commanding appellants to treat service rendered by petitioner-respondents in work charge as regular and grant consequential benefit with regard to time scale etc. 4. All petitioner-respondents were initially engaged and appointed in ‘work charge’ establishment. They were regularZed subsequently. Details of date of appointment in work charge and regularZation are given as under : S. No. Date of appointment in work charge Date of regularization Post 1. Ram Prakash 1973 29.01.1990 Metha 2. Pramod Jain 30.06.2005 Cleaner 3. S.P. Mathur 1.11.1992 14.02.2006 Fitter 4. Chandan Ram 01.04.1999 03.07.2007 Metha 5. Mukhtar Ahmad 17.08.2004 Mechanic 6. Badan Singh 30.07.1997 Driver 5. Petitioner-respondents claimed that on completion of 8, 14 and 24 years of service, in view of Government Order dated 2.12.2002, they ought to have been considered for next promotional scale and next higher scale which has not been allowed on the ground that service rendered in work charge is not ‘regular service’ in establishment. 6. A similar issue came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge in Hansa Dutt Bahuguna and others (Supra) decided vide judgment dated 5.7.2006. Learned Single Judge relied on Supreme Court Judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Ravindra Kumar and others, Civil Appeal No. 6740-6741 of 1997, and allowed writ petition directing State Government and its Authorities to count service rendered in ‘work charge’ for the purpose of promotional scale and additional increment etc. 7. Learned Single Judge relied on Supreme Court Judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Ravindra Kumar and others, Civil Appeal No. 6740-6741 of 1997, and allowed writ petition directing State Government and its Authorities to count service rendered in ‘work charge’ for the purpose of promotional scale and additional increment etc. 7. We find that judgment of High Court in Hansa Dutt Bahuguna and others (Supra) quoted following extracts from the judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Ravindra Kumar and others (Supra) ; “It is concerned by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in these cases we are concerned with employees who had been engaged initially on work charge basis and later on they were regularZed and brought into the cadre of the service. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that this period which the employees had rendered as work charge basis count for the purpose of the increment in the cadre as well as the qualifying service for the pension. We therefore see no justification in not counting their period for the purpose of giving additional increment on completion of 8 and 18 years of service as well as 10 and 20 years of service for getting higher scale as per the Government Circulars, which obviously are intended to avoid stagnation in a particular grade.” 8. Thus in the matter before Supreme Court, it was admitted case of State of Haryana and others (Supra) that service rendered in work charge was being counted for the purpose of increment in the cadre as well as qualifying service for pension. It may be placed on record that aforesaid judgment in State of Haryana and others (Supra) was followed by a Division Bench by Punjab & Haryana High Court in another matter, whose against appeal came up before Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jagjiwan Ram and others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 769, Court considered nature of ‘work charge establishment’ as also the nature of appointment and engagement of a person in work charge establishment. Observations made in paragraph 9 and 10 of judgment in Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Supra) are reproduced as under : “We have considered the respective submission. Generally speaking, a work-charged establishment is an establishment of which the expenses are chargeable to works. Observations made in paragraph 9 and 10 of judgment in Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Supra) are reproduced as under : “We have considered the respective submission. Generally speaking, a work-charged establishment is an establishment of which the expenses are chargeable to works. The pay and allowances of the employees who are engaged on a work charged establishment are usually shown under a specified sub-head of the estimated cost of works. The charged employees are engaged for execution of a specified work or project and their engagement comes to an end on completion of the work or project. The source and mode of engagement/recruitment of work charged employees, their pay and conditions of employment are altogether different from the persons appointed in the regular establishment against sanctioned posts after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Act or rules and their duties and responsibilities are also substantially different than those of regular employees. The work-charged employees can claim protection under the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any particular statute but they cannot be treated on a par with the employees of regular establishment. They can neither claim regularZation of service as of right nor can they claim pay scales and other financial benefits on a par with regular employees. If the service of a work charged employee is regularZed under any statute or a scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment from the date of regularZation. His service in the work charged establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular establishment unless a specific provision to that effect is made either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularZation. In other works, if the statute or scheme under which service or work charged employee is regularZed does not provide for counting of past service, the work charged employee cannot claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts, fixation of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments etc.” (Emphasis added) 9. Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Supra) referred to an earlier judgment in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, 1979 (4) SCC 440 , wherein it was held that employees appointed on work charge are not entitled to service benefits available to regular employees. Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Supra) referred to an earlier judgment in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, 1979 (4) SCC 440 , wherein it was held that employees appointed on work charge are not entitled to service benefits available to regular employees. It also referred to another judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, 1997 (2) SCC 517 , wherein question of equal pay for equal work between work charge employee and regular employee was considered. Relying on judgment in Jaswant Singh (Supra), in State of Rajasthan (Supra) Court said: “8. A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a ‘work’ and availability of funds for executing it. So far as employees engaged in work-charged establishments are concerned, not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not same as those of the employees of the regular establishment. A regular establishment and a work-charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the person employed on those establishment thus, form two separate and distinct classes. For that reason, if a separate set of rules are framed for the person engaged in the work-charged establishment and the general rules applicable to the person working on the regular establishment are not made applicable to them, it cannot be said that they are treated in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by the Government. It is well-settled that the Government has the power to frame different rules for different classes of employee. We, therefore, reject the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1993 that clauses (g), (h) and (I) of Rule 2 of the Rajsthan Service Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and uphold the view taken by the High Court. The project rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of the power available to it under Rule 42 of RSR. They are subsidiary rules made for the purpose granting special concessions and allowances to Government servants working on projects. When non-application of the main rules, namely, RSR to work-charged employees is not found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 by the High Court. They are subsidiary rules made for the purpose granting special concessions and allowances to Government servants working on projects. When non-application of the main rules, namely, RSR to work-charged employees is not found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 by the High Court. It is difficult to appreciate how to subsidiary rules for that reason only can be held to be violative of those articles. The High Court failed to consider this aspect and in our opinion, erroneously struck down rules to (b) and (d) of the 1962 Project Rules and rules for (2) and (4) of the 1975 Project Rules.” (Emphasis added) 10. Referring aforesaid judgments, Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others (Supra), in para-14 said as under: “14. The ratio of the above mentioned judgments is that work-charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with any other category or class of employees much less regular employees and further that the work charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules or policy framed by the employee.” 11. Thereafter Court also considered the question whether time bound promotional scale can be allowed to work charge employees taking into consideration service rendered in work charge and in para 20 and 21 of judgment held as under : “20 A reading of the scheme framed by the Board makes it clear that the benefit of time bound promotional scales was to be given to the employees only on their completing 9/16 years regular service. Likewise, the benefit of promotional increments could be given only on completion of 23 years regular service. The use of the term `regular service’ in various paragraphs of the scheme shows that service rendered by an employee after regular appointment could only be counted for computation of 9/16/23 years service and the service of a temporary, adhoc or work charged employee cannot be counted for extending the benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments. The use of the term `regular service’ in various paragraphs of the scheme shows that service rendered by an employee after regular appointment could only be counted for computation of 9/16/23 years service and the service of a temporary, adhoc or work charged employee cannot be counted for extending the benefit of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments. If the Board intended that total service rendered by the employees irrespective of their mode of recruitment and status should be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments, then instead of using the expression `9/16 years regular service’ or `23 years regular service’, the concerned authority would have used the expression `9/16 years service’ or `23 years service’. However, the fact of the matter is that the scheme in its plainest term embodies the requirement of 9/16 years regular service or 23 years regular service as a condition for grant of time bound promotional scales or promotional increments as the case may be. 21. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of time bound promotional scales/promotional increments on a date prior to completion of 9/16/23 years regular service and the High Court committed serious error by directing the appellants to give them benefit of the scheme by counting their work charged service.” (Emphasis added) 12. Judgment in State of Haryana and others (Supra) therefore could not have been applied in State of U.P. unless there is admitted case that service rendered in work charge also counts for the purpose of increment, time bound promotional scale, qualifying service for pension etc. 13. In the present case we find that Government Order dated 2.12.2002 clearly provides that benefit would be available only to those employees who are regularZed and are available after regularZation. Neither this aspect was considered by learned Single Judge in Hansa Dutt Bahuguna and others (Supra) nor it is an admitted fact that service rendered in work charge is treated as qualifying service for pension in State of U.P. which was specifically an admitted case on behalf of State of Haryana in State of Haryana and others (Supra). 14. Neither this aspect was considered by learned Single Judge in Hansa Dutt Bahuguna and others (Supra) nor it is an admitted fact that service rendered in work charge is treated as qualifying service for pension in State of U.P. which was specifically an admitted case on behalf of State of Haryana in State of Haryana and others (Supra). 14. The question, whether service rendered in work charge can be treated as ‘qualifying service’ for pension, has also been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Babu @ Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 others, 2016(3) ADJ 149 (FB). Court has held that it will not. Relevant extract of judgment is reproduced as under: “We therefore hold that the period of service spent in a work charged establishment is not liable to be countenanced for the purposes of computing qualifying service. The law in this regard stands correctly declared and elucidated in Jai Prakash, Navrang Lal Srivastava and Ram Nagina. The decision in Panchu and the other judgments of this Court which have followed the line of reasoning adopted therein shall accordingly stand overruled. Before concluding, we may only refer to three judgments cited before us in support of the contention that the period of service rendered in a work-charged establishment was liable to be counted while computing qualifying service. These were (a) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others v. Bachan Singh25; (b) Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar and others26; and (c) Secretary, Minor Irrigation Deptt. & R.E.S. v. Narendra Kumar Tripathi27. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was a matter which arose from a judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and was again based upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of that High Court in Kesar Chand. Amarkant Rai dealt with the regularZation of the appellant who was working on daily wages. It obviously has no relevance to the issue which falls for our consideration. Similarly, Narendra Kumar Tripathi was dealing with an issue as to whether the period of service as rendered on ad hoc basis was liable to be counted for the purposes of seniority. This judgment too has no application to the issue which stands referred to this Full Bench. Similarly, Narendra Kumar Tripathi was dealing with an issue as to whether the period of service as rendered on ad hoc basis was liable to be counted for the purposes of seniority. This judgment too has no application to the issue which stands referred to this Full Bench. We accordingly answer the reference by holding that the period of service spent by a person in a work charged establishment is not liable to be counted for the purposes of computing qualifying service. Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulations continues to govern and hold the field. The factual backdrop in which Narata Singh came to be rendered escaped the attention of the various Division Benches which followed it despite the existence of the unambiguous command of Regulation 370. Jai Prakash and the subsequent pronouncements following it and referred to above represent the correct position in law. The matter shall now be placed before the learned Single Judge for a decision on the writ petition in the light of what has been held above.” (Emphasis added) 15. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that service rendered in work charge in State of U.P. could not have been considered for giving benefit as per Government Order dated 2.12.2002. Judgment in appeal therefore is not sustainable. 16. Appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 22.4.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21759 of 2010, is hereby set-aside.