ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied, by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5221 of 2007 dated 31st January, 2017. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant is the original petitioner, who was appointed as temporary employee from 4.12.1981. He was doing the work of Clerk-cum-Typist. Thereafter, writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1385 of 2004 was preferred by this appellant for regularization of the service. This prayer was not granted by the Court, but, the observations were made in the order dated 25th July, 2006 to the effect that the representation of this appellant was ordered to be considered in accordance with law. 3. It appears that thereafter vide order dated 14th September, 2006, the services of this appellant was regularized with effect from the date on which the order was passed (Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 4. In view of these facts and circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge and no benefit can be granted to this appellant for pensionary benefits by reckoning the services of this appellant from 4.12.1981. In fact, the service of this appellant was regularized on 14.9.2006, with effect from the date on which the order was passed. This order at Annexure-4 was never under challenge by this appellant. Thus, as per Annexure-4, the services of this appellant was, regularized with effect from 14.9.2006. Hence, for pensionary benefits and retirement benefits, the services of this appellant can be calculated only from 14.9.2006 and not from 4.12.1981. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 5. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhyan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 656, in para 1 as under :- "1. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 5. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhyan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 656, in para 1 as under :- "1. These appeals and the writ petition raised a common question as to whether the services rendered as an Adult Education Supervisor under a Non-formal Education Scheme evolved by the State of Haryana can be counted for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits as well as for the purpose of fixation of his pay, when such an employee is recruited to a regular post under the State Government either with or without break of service. Needless to mention that these appellants after having served for a number of years under the Rural Education Literacy Project/State Adult Education Programme the Scheme itself under which they had been discharging their duties stood abolished, and consequently the appellants ceased to be employees. They had approached this Court in a writ petition, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1040 of 1990 seeking a mandamus to the State Government for their absorption in any regular cadre of the State Government. In the said case, the counsel appearing for the State of Haryana fairly stated that the Government is prepared to absorb the applicants in the State's service as and when vacancies in the cadre of Social Studies Teachers and Masters are available, and on the basis of the said statement made by the counsel appearing for the State of Haryana the Writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the Government should utilise the past experience of these persons by absorbing them suitably as and when vacancies would occur in the post as already stated. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the appellants were recruited to the post of Teachers on different dates in the year 1993, and they were taken in as fresh recruits. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the appellants were recruited to the post of Teachers on different dates in the year 1993, and they were taken in as fresh recruits. Their salary having been fixed at the initial stage of the scale of pay for the post in question, the appellants, therefore, approached the High Court seeking relief that their pay in the scale of pay should be fixed up taking the past services into account and that their past services rendered under the Scheme should also be taken into account for the purpose of deciding their pension. The High Court relying upon the circular issued by the Government on 13.11.1995 came to the conclusion that no part of the services rendered by the appellants as Supervisors in the Adult Education Scheme can be considered either for the purpose of determining the initial amount of salary which they would get on their regular absorption nor can the same be taken into account for deciding the pensionary benefits, ultimately, which the appellants would receive on superannuation from the regular services. It is this judgment of the High Court, which is the subject-matter of challenge in these appeals. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, appearing the appellants strenuously contended that by judgment of this Court the appellants having been given the regular pay scale while continuing as Adult Education Supervisors under the Scheme on the basis that they were discharging full-time duties, there is no rationale to deny the relief sought for by the appellants in the writ petition. Mr. Kalra also contended that the High Court was totally in error by coming to the conclusion that the appellants had rendered service as part-time Supervisors, which is belied by the earlier decision of this Court. He further contended that since under the Government rules and regulations the temporary employees, the ad hoc employees and the work-charged employees are entitled to count their services for the purposes of getting the pensionary benefits, it would not be fair to discriminate against this particular group of employees, though undoubtedly, they had served the period under a particular scheme. Having considered the two contentions made, and having applied our mind to the rules and regulations that were shown to us, we are not in a position to accept either of the contentions raised by Mr. Kalra. Having considered the two contentions made, and having applied our mind to the rules and regulations that were shown to us, we are not in a position to accept either of the contentions raised by Mr. Kalra. The continuance/engagement of the appellants under the specific scheme cannot be held to be an employment under any establishment of the Government. Such schemes are taken up for certain contingencies when money for the same is provided either by the Central Government or at times by some foreign countries. But the employment under such scheme not being a part of the formal cadre of the State Government, it is difficult to hold that the period for which an employee rendered service under such scheme can be counted either for the purposes of deciding their pensionary benefits or even for fixing of their salary in the scale of pay once they are regularly absorbed. The judgment of this Court pursuant to which the appellants were absorbed as against regular posts in the Government itself would indicate that the Court had taken a compassionate view, and not on any rights which flowed from the past services rendered by the appellants under the Scheme in question, and that also under the concession of the counsel appealing for the State Government. We have not been shown any rules or regulations of the State, which even confer pensionary benefits for such services rendered by the appellants. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for us to find any infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, see no merits in these appeals and the writ petition, which are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) 6. It has been further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jagjiwan Ram and others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 661 , in para 10 as under :- "10. 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 regularisation of service as of right nor can they claim pay scales and other financial benefits on a par with 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 regularisation 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 regularised under any statute or a scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment from the date of regularisation. 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 regularisation. In other words, if the statute or scheme under which service of work-charged employee is regularised 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 supplied) 7. It has been also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. v. A. Singamuthu, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113 , in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 as under :- "17. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, while allowing the writ filed by the respondent extended the benefit of the said GOMs No. 22 dated 28.2.2006 and directed the appellants to grant regularisation of respondent's service from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits. The learned Judge failed to take note of the fact that as per GOMs No. 22 dated 28.2.2006, the services of employees working in various Government departments on full-time daily-wage basis, who have completed more than ten years of continuous service as on 1.1.2006 will be regularised and not part-time masalchis like the respondent herein. In GOMs No. 84 dated 18.6.2012, the Government made it clear that GOMs No. 22 dated 28.2.2006 is applicable only to full-time daily wagers and not to part-time daily wagers. The respondent was temporarily appointed part-time worker as per Tamil Nadu. Finance Code, Vol. 2, Appendix-5 and his appointment was completely temporary. In GOMs No. 84 dated 18.6.2012, the Government made it clear that GOMs No. 22 dated 28.2.2006 is applicable only to full-time daily wagers and not to part-time daily wagers. The respondent was temporarily appointed part-time worker as per Tamil Nadu. Finance Code, Vol. 2, Appendix-5 and his appointment was completely temporary. The respondent being appointed as part-time masalchi, cannot compare himself to full-time daily wagers and seek benefit of GOMs No. 22 dated 28.2.2006. The Single Judge also failed to consider that the Government did not grant regularisation of services of any part-time employee on completion of ten years of his service as envisaged under GOMs No. 22 dated 28.2.2006. 18. The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of GOMs No. 22 dated 28.2.2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. The respondent was appointed on 1.4.1989 and completed ten years of service on 31.3.1999. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, if the respondent is to be given monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of service, that is, from 1.4.1999 till the date of his regularisation, that is, 18.6.2012, the financial commitment to the State would be around Rs. 10,85,113 (approximately) towards back wages apart from pension which will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. That apart, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of Registration Department, about 172 persons were regularised under various G.Os. and if the impugned order is sustained, the Government will have to pay the back wages to all those persons from the date of completion of ten years in service and this will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. Since the impugned order directing regularisation of the respondent from the date of completion of their ten years would adversely affect the State exchequer in a huge manner, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score also. 19. It is pertinent to note that even the regularisation of services of part-time employees vide G.O. (Rt.) No. 505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14.10.2009 and G.O. (2D). No. 32 Finance (T.A. 2). Department dated 26.3.2010 was effected by extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28.2.2006 only from the date of Government orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. No. 32 Finance (T.A. 2). Department dated 26.3.2010 was effected by extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28.2.2006 only from the date of Government orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. The Division Bench also failed to take note that GOMs No. 22 P & AR Dept. dated 28.2.2006 is applicable only to fulltime daily-wage employees and who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 1.1.2006 and not to part-time employees. As per G.O. (Rt.) No. 84 dated 18.6.2012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of Government order regularising his service, that is, 18.6.2012. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside." (Emphasis supplied) 8. The Full Bench of this Court has taken a similar view in the case of Bholanath Hansda @ Bhola Hansda v. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2017 (3) JCR 795 (Jhr) (FB), in paragraphs 33, 45 and 46 as under :- "33. The proposition of law which follows from the decisions quoted herein above, is that continuous engagement of person under a specific scheme cannot be held to be employment under any regular establishment of the Government. Such schemes are taken for certain contingencies when money for the same are provided either by the Central Government and/or by the State Government but the employment not being part of the formal cadre of the State Government, services rendered by such employees under the scheme cannot be counted for the purpose of deciding pensionary benefits or even for fixation of salary in the scale of pay once they are regularly absorbed. 45. The elaborate foregoing discussion on all the germane issues therefore lead to the inescapable conclusion that the past services of the petitioners/employees under the Adult Education/Non-formal Education/Mass Education scheme cannot be counted for the purpose of their pensionary benefits. The entire discussion made can be summarized in the following manner :- (i) The issue relating to counting of past services of the petitioners/employees under the Adult Education/Non-formal Education/Mass Education scheme for the purpose of pensionary benefits has not become final as contended by the petitioners. The entire discussion made can be summarized in the following manner :- (i) The issue relating to counting of past services of the petitioners/employees under the Adult Education/Non-formal Education/Mass Education scheme for the purpose of pensionary benefits has not become final as contended by the petitioners. In view of the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 , upon dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal (CC. 8793 of 2005) in the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1377 of 2011 in the case of Ila Sinha, Special Leave to Appeal (CC. No 3780 of 2011) in the case of Nirmala Kumar; Special Leave to Appeal (CC 19981 of 2011) in the case of Zahid Hussain & others in limine by a non-speaking order, it can be safely said that the issue involved in the present reference has not been rendered final on adjudication in any of these matters by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1377 of 2011 in the case of Ila Sinha, the Apex Court have while dismissing the S.L.P in limine vide judgment dated 2.8.2013 left the question of law open. In the case of Asgar Ali and others, W.P.S. No. 729 of 2004, L.P.A. No. 53 of 2012 and Special Leave to Appeal (CC Nos. 10361-10364 of 2014) preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the judgment passed in L.P.A. dated 1.10.2013, the petitioners therein had only sought payment of salary for the period 16.5.2001 till January, 2008 i.e. before their absorption in February, 2008. No claim for counting of past service under Adult Education Project for the purpose of pensionary benefits were raised or decided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere in the S.L.P. which was dismissed. However, while dismissing the S.L.P. the order of the High Court was modified by directing that payment of arrears shall be done in phased manner within a period of 2 years from the date of order i.e. 18.7.2014. The claim related to the payment of arrears of salary from 16.5.2001 to the date of absorption of such employees has therefore become final. This question has neither been referred to this larger Bench as clearly observed in the order dated 25.6.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. The claim related to the payment of arrears of salary from 16.5.2001 to the date of absorption of such employees has therefore become final. This question has neither been referred to this larger Bench as clearly observed in the order dated 25.6.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. (ii) The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhyan Singh (supra) is in fact a direct judgment on the very issue involved in the present matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case have categorically held that no part of the service rendered by the appellant as Supervisor under the Adult Education Scheme could be counted either for the purpose of deciding their pensionary benefits or for even fixation of salary in the scale of pay once they are regularly absorbed. The continuance/engagement of the appellants under the specific scheme cannot be held to be an employment under any establishment of the Government. Such employment under such scheme are not part of the formal cadre of the State Government. The ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has rightly been relied upon by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha in L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004 vide judgment dated 20.3.2008 holding that past services under the Adult Education Scheme cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. (iii) In none of the judgments rendered thereafter in the case of Ila Sinha, Nirmala Kumari, Zahid Hussain, Sitaram, Najib Neyaz Ahmad, the judgment rendered in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha, in L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004 was either referred to or considered. Petitioners have strenuously tried to impress that the contention of the respondent-State in the case of Zahid Hussain, in W.P.S. No. 2774 of 2004, that absorption of the petitioners was treated as fresh appointment, was categorically negatived by the learned Single Judge, holding that such petitioners cannot be given any differential treatment other than what has been given by the State Government to other similarly situated employees. However, it is apparent that the said writ petition was in respect of claim of salary w.e.f. 16.5.2001 till their absorption in service. The Notification dated 30.5.2007 was neither under challenge nor was the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha (supra) referred to or considered. However, it is apparent that the said writ petition was in respect of claim of salary w.e.f. 16.5.2001 till their absorption in service. The Notification dated 30.5.2007 was neither under challenge nor was the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha (supra) referred to or considered. Moreover in all the subsequent cases of Ila Sinha, Nirmala Kumari, Zahid Hussain etc. essentially the learned Single Judge relied upon the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, in W.P.S. No. 4751 of 2003. We have found that Bhubaneshwar Mahto was treated as a regular employee having been appointed on 10.12.1968 as a peon in the State Library much before the Adult Education Project was started in the year 1978. He was taken under the Adult Education Project thereafter and had retired on 31.7.2001 after closure of the scheme since 15.5.2001. Petitioners, Ila Sinha, Nirmala Kumari, Zahid Hussain, Sitaram, Nazib Neyaz Ahmad and others, all were appointed under the Adult Education Project after it was started in 1978 on being sponsored by the Central Government. We are therefore of the considered view that principle of law laid down in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha, (L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004) by the learned Division Bench of this Court is the correct position in law. 46. We accordingly hold and answer the reference in the following terms :- None of the employees/petitioners are entitled to count their past services under the Adult Education/Non-formal Education/Mass Education scheme for the purpose of their pensionary benefits. This principle would apply to all the 3 broad categories of petitioners enumerated in the opening paragraph of the writ petition i.e. (i) those employees/ petitioners who after being declared surplus have either retired or died before they were absorbed pursuant to the notification dated 30.5.2007; (ii) the second category of petitioners who after being declared surplus w.e.f. 16.5.2001 were absorbed in Government service vide notification dated 30.5.2007 and have retired thereafter and (iii) the petitioners who are/were still working as on the date of filing of the writ petitions under the Government of Jharkhand after being absorbed vide notification dated 30.5.2007. We uphold the conditions enumerated at Clauses 11 and 12 of the absorption notification dated 30.5.2007 where under appointment of such persons were treated as fresh appointment and their past services would not be counted for the purpose of seniority or initial pay fixation." (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of these decisions, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge. The date of regularization cannot be altered by this Court, especially when there is no challenge for the same. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.