JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. In view of the difference of opinion noted by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the two Division Bench Judgments, namely, Civil Review No. 210 of 2014, arising out of L.P.A. No. 416 of 2013 dated 21.09.2015 (State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Sheela Devi and other analogous cases) as well as in L.P.A. No. 12674 of 2017 dated 04.01.2018 (Binod Kumar & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors.), with respect to counting of the period of work-charged service for the purposes of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pension able service, the matter has been referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. 2. Hence, the constitution of the present Full Bench. 3. The learned Single Judge in Raghunath Sahani, since dead, and now represented by Smt. Amrika Devi and three others, noted the difference between two Division Bench Judgments in as much as in Sheela Devi (supra), the Division Bench had directed for taking into account of the entire period of work-charged tenure for being counted for pensionary benefits whereas in Binod Kumar (supra), the Division Bench, taking into account the Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Condition (Repeal) Rules, 2013 had opined that period spent under the work-charged establishment would be counted only to the extent of the shortfall in the qualifying period of service for grant of pension which shall be made up by adding that period spent under the work-charged establishment and that the entire period spent under the work-charged establishment would not be taken into account. It was also noticed by the learned Single Judge that the judgment rendered in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) was not noticed in Binod Kumar (supra) which was a later pronouncement. 4. The question therefore revolves around and could be answered by testing the validity and reasonableness of the contents of the Circular No. 10710 dated 17.10.2013. 5. In order to appreciate the issue, it would be necessary to go down the history of the decisions of the Government with respect to regularization of the services of a work-charged employee and affording pension to him. 6. The State of Bihar vide Finance Department's Memo No. 1344 dated 4th of February, 1949 laid down the revised conditions of the service of a work-charged establishment. 6. The State of Bihar vide Finance Department's Memo No. 1344 dated 4th of February, 1949 laid down the revised conditions of the service of a work-charged establishment. The memo referred to above reads as follows: "Patna High court LPA No. 166 of 2018 dt. 4.2.2019" Subject.- Revised conditions of service of work-charged establishment. The existing distinction between work charged establishment temporary and permanent establishment and daily labour as given in the P.W. Code and P.W.D. Accounts Code will be maintained but the conditions of service of work- charged establishment will henceforth be identical with those of temporary Government servants. The posts in work charged establishment which are of permanent nature, that is required for 12 months in the year and for long and indefinite period will be made permanent and included in permanent establishment and the men employed on these posts, having year's approved service will be included amongst permanent Government employees. Details in this connection are Patna High Court LPA No.166 of 2018 dt.04-02-2019" being worked out and till this is done the conditions of service applicable to temporary Government servants will apply to all work-charged posts. [Vide F.D. Memo No. 1344 dated 4.2.1949]. 7. Thereafter, the Government of the day had taken a decision vide order No. 13327 dated 29.06.1971 to induct a work-charged employee into regular establishment who had rendered services for 10 years and be paid pension. However, for qualifying for pension, 10 years minimum service was required and therefore the period rendered by an employee in a work-charged establishment would not be counted for pension. The aforesaid decision was liberalized and vide order no. 3425 dated 31.03.1976, a decision was taken to add the service rendered by an employee under work-charged establishment who were brought into regular establishment after 01.04.1971 for meeting the 10 years eligibility criterion for the services to become pension able. Even for family pension, it was decided that if the service in regular establishment was less than one year, the period of work-charged tenure would be added. Even for family pension, it was decided that if the service in regular establishment was less than one year, the period of work-charged tenure would be added. In the year 1980 (Order No. 505, dated 06.03.1980), by another stroke of pen, the requirement was further relaxed by the Government and it was provided that such work-charged employees who were brought into regular establishment after 01.04.1971 or thereafter, who did not have the requisite qualifying years, namely 10 years for regular service and 15 years for temporary service after induction into the regular establishment, shall be given the benefit of the period of service during work-charged tenure to make it pension able along with gratuity. This was done to meet the requirement of Rule 203 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Necessary provision was also made for family pension by the aforesaid government order. Showing further liberality in the matter, the Government vide Resolution No. 3058 dated 22.10.1984 provided for regularizing the work-charged employees who had continuously worked against one post for five years in different work-charged establishments. But, it was also decided that in future, no post in work-charged establishment shall be filled up nor created, in view of the Finance Department Circular No. 8954 dated 23rd of July, 1975. In that order also, provision for adding service from the work-charged tenure for the purposes of making it pension able was made. Thereafter comes the Resolution No. 1503 dated 27.03.1987 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, declaring that the whole period rendered in work-charged establishment for computation of qualifying period for grant of pension shall be counted. 8. It may be noted that such addition from the work-charged period was only for making the services of such work-charged employee qualify for pension. For the purposes of giving selection grade and time-bound-promotion, the period rendered in work-charged establishment, though could be added but without disturbing the seniority of a regular employee. 8. It may be noted that such addition from the work-charged period was only for making the services of such work-charged employee qualify for pension. For the purposes of giving selection grade and time-bound-promotion, the period rendered in work-charged establishment, though could be added but without disturbing the seniority of a regular employee. For clarity, paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Circular is being extracted for ready reference: ^^3- dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa dks isa'ku] Áoj dksfV ,oa dkyc} ÁksUufr dh lqfo/kk nsus ds fy, dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa fcrk;h x;h vof/k dks DokfyQkUbx ihfj;M dh x.kuk dk fo"k; ljdkj ds fopkjk/khu FkkA vr% iw.kZ fopkjksijkUr iwoZ esa fy, x, fu.kZ; dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj us fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;k gS %& ¼v½ ,sls dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkjh ftudks orZeku vuqns'kksa ds v/khu isa'ku ,oa minku vuqekU; gksrk gS muds }kjk dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa fcrk;h xbZ iwjh lsokof/k dks 'kkfey djrs gq, isa'ku ,oa minku ds fy, DokfyQkUbx ihfj;M dh x.kuk dh tk;sxh] c'krZ ,slk djrs le; dk;ZHkkfjr lsok ls ftruh vof/k isa'ku ;ksX; lsok,a tksM+h tk,axh mruh vof/k esa va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa ÁnRr ljdkjh va'knku vxj dksbZ gks] dh jkf'k ljdkj dks ykSVk nsuh gksxh rFkk jkT; dks"k esa tek dj nsuh gksxhA ¼c½ fu;fer LFkkiuk esa vkus ds i'pkr~ dk;ZHkkfjr lsok o`f} dks tksM+rs gq, lEcfU/kr deZpkfj;ksa dks Áoj dksfV ,oa dkyc} ÁksUufr dh lqfo/kk miyC/k djk;h tk;s] c'krsZ fd mlls fdlh Hkh fu;fer deZpkjh dh ojh;rk dk voØe.k ugha gksrk gksA ojh; Áoj dksfV ;k dkyc} ÁksUufr ds lEcU/k esa bl vkns'k ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ds iwoZ dks dksbZ Hkh cdk;k vuqekU; ugha gksxkA bl Álax esa iwoZ esa fuxZr lHkh vkns'k ,oa vuqns'k bl va'k rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk;saxsA 4- bl vkns'k dk ÁHkko vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls gksxkA** 9. The language of the resolution is absolutely clear and unambiguous that if need be, the entire service period under the work-charged establishment could be added but only for completing the qualifying period for the purposes of pension. However, no such qualifying period has been noted for giving selection grade and time-bound-promotion to the employees and for that purpose, the entire period under a work-charged tenure could be counted but without disturbing the seniority of regular employee. 10. However, no such qualifying period has been noted for giving selection grade and time-bound-promotion to the employees and for that purpose, the entire period under a work-charged tenure could be counted but without disturbing the seniority of regular employee. 10. It would be, in our opinion, wrong to read that by virtue of 1987 Circular, the entire service period rendered in work-charged establishment is to be counted for pension also. 11. The Finance Department, Government of Bihar vide letter no. 1393 dated 31.03.2004 reiterated the contents of the Circular of 1987, referred to above, though by using different terminology. It would be relevant to extract the Circular of 2004, which, in fact, reiterates the decision taken vide the Circular of 1987, referred to above. The use of the words [1] clearly refers to qualifying period and nothing more. 1393 dated 31.03.2004 reiterated the contents of the Circular of 1987, referred to above, though by using different terminology. It would be relevant to extract the Circular of 2004, which, in fact, reiterates the decision taken vide the Circular of 1987, referred to above. The use of the words [1] clearly refers to qualifying period and nothing more. ^^fcgkj ljdkj] foRr foHkkx i=kad foRr ¼27½ isa'ku dhŒ&91@04&1393 fnukad 31-3-2004 dh ÁfrfyfiA Ás"kd] _f"k 'kadj flag] la;qDr lfpo] foRr foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk lsok esa] lHkh vk;qDr ,oa lfpo] lHkh lfpo ,oa foHkkxk/;{kA fo"k; & dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkjhx.k dks fu;fefrdj.k ds i'pkr~ muds vkfJrksa dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh vuqekU;rk ds laca/k esaA ljdkj ds fofHkUu foHkkxksa esa dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qDr dh xbZA jkT; ljdkj }kjk ,sls dk;ZHkkfjr dkfeZ;ksa dks fu;fer LFkkiuk esa ysdj isa'ku@ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh lqfo/kk,a nh tkus yxhA rRi'pkr~ jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij ,sls dkfeZ;ksa dks lqfo/kkvksa esa mRrjksrj fofHkUu ifji=ksa }kjk o`f} dh xbZ %& 1- yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ds vkns'k la[;k 13327 fnukad 29-6-1971 }kjk jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd nl o"kksZ ls vf/kd yxkrkj dk;Zjr dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa dks ml foHkkx dh fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fy;k tk; rFkk isa'ku lfgr lHkh lqfo/kk,a nh tk;A ijUrq isa'ku dh vuqekU;rk ds fy, U;wure nl o"kZ dh lsok vfuok;Z Fkh rFkk isa'ku dh x.kuk gsrq dk;ZHkkfjr lsok dh x.kuk ugha dh tkrh FkhA 2- foRr foHkkx ds ifji= 3425 fnukad 31-3-1976 }kjk ljdkj }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd oSls] dk;ZHkkfjr dehZ tks fnukad 1-4-1971 ,oa ckn esa fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fy, x, gks rFkk ftudh fu;fer lsok 10 o"kksZ ls de gks] dh U;wure 10 o"kksZ dh lsok iwjh djus ds fy, ftruh vof/k de gks] mruh vof/k fnukad 1-4-1971 ds iwoZ ds dk;ZHkkfjr lsok dh x.kuk isa'ku Á;kstukFkZ dh tk;A ikfjokfjd isa'ku esa Hkh ;fn dqy fu;fer lsok ,d o"kZ ls de gks] rks ml deh dks dk;ZHkkfjr lsok ls mruh vof/k ysdj iwjh dj yh tk;A 3- iqu% foRr foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k 505 fnukad 6-3-1978 }kjk bls vkSj mnkj cuk;k x;kA jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd oSls dk;ZHkkfjr dehZ] tks nl o"kksZ ls de dk;ZHkkfjr lsok esa jgdj fnukad 1-4-1978 vFkok blds ckn fu;fer LFkkiuk esa vk;s gksa rFkk fu;fer LFkkiuk ls lsok fuo`fr ds le; U;wure isa'ku Ánk;h lsok ¼LFkk;h lsok gksus ij 10 o"kZ rFkk vLFkk;h gksus ij 15 o"kZ½ iwjh ugha dj ik;s gksa] dks Hkh isa'ku Ánk;h lsok esa dehZ ds rqY; dk;ZHkkfjr lsok tksM+dj isa'ku Ánk;h lsok iwjh djus dh lqfo/kk nh tk; ftlls mUgsa isa'ku@miknku ns; gks ldsA lkFk gh fu;fer LFkkiuk esa vkus ds ckn U;wure ikfjokfjd isa'ku Ánk;h lsok ,d o"kZ iwjh djus ds iwoZ mudh e`R;q gks tkrh gS rks ,d o"kZ iwjh djus esa tks deh jg tkrh gS mlls dk;ZHkkfjr lsok dks tksM+dj mUgsa ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh Lohd`fr nh tk;sxhA 4- iqu% mijksDr ifji= dks foRr foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k 3058] fnukad 22-10-1984 ds }kjk vkSj vf/kd vk/kkj cuk;k x;kA blds }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k fd lHkh dk;Z foHkkxksa ds v/khu dk;Zjr lHkh dk;ZHkkfjr lsod ftUgksaus ,d gh in ij ikap o"kksZ dh larks"ktud yxkrkj lsok iwjh dj yh gS] mUgsa fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fy;k tk;A 5- foRr foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k 1503 fnukad 27-3-1987 esa Áko/kku fd;k x;k fd %& ¼1½ ,sls dk;ZHkkfjr deZpkjh ftudks oRrZeku vuqns'kksa ds v/khu isa'ku ,oa miknku vuqekU; gksrk gS muds }kjk dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk esa fcrkbZ xbZ iwjh lsokof/k dks 'kkfey djrs gq, isa'ku ,oa miknku ds fy, vgZd vof/k dh x.kuk dh tk;sxhA ¼2½ fu;fer LFkkiuk esa vkus i'pkr~ dk;ZHkkfjr lsoko`f} dks tksM+rs gq, lacaf/kr deZpkfj;ksa dk Áoj dksfV ,oa dkyc} ÁksUufr dh lqfo/kk miyC/k djk;h tk;sxhA 6- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa dfri; okn ,sls dfeZ;ksa ds lsoksRrj ykHk ds Álax esa fopkjk/khu gS] ftu dfeZ;ksa dh lsok fu;fer LFkkiuk esa ifji= gksus ds iwoZ ;k rks in/kkjd dh lsokfuo`fr gks xbZ vFkok in/kkjh dh e`R;q gks xbZA oRrZeku mica/kksa ds v/khu ,sls dfeZ;ksa dks dksbZ isa'kujh ykHk ns; ugha gSA 7- U;k;k/khu ekeyksa ds ifjis{; esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl ekeys ij iqu% leqfpr fopkj fd;k x;kA lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr ljdkj }kjk ik;k x;k gS ewy mica/kksa dks la'kksf/kr dj jkT; ljdkj us dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk ds dfeZ;ksa ds laca/k esa fu;eksa dks mnkjhd`r djrs gq, vf/kd lqfo/kk;sa vuqekU; dh gSa ftlls mudh vkfFkZd fLFkfr esa xq:rj fodkl gqvk gS ,oa ;g fd fu;eksa dks vkSj vf/kd mnkjhd`r fd;s tkus dk vkSfpR; LFkkfir ugha gksrk gSA rn~uqlkj] tSlk fd oRrZeku esa micU/k gS] fdlh dk;ZHkkfjr LFkkiuk ds v/khu dk;Zjr dehZ dh lsok dk fufer LFkkiuk esa lek;kstu ds iwoZ lacaf/kr dehZ dh lsokfuo`fr vFkok e`R;q gks tkus ij mUgsa isa'ku vFkok ikfjokfjd isa'ku vuqekU; ugha gksxkA** 12. One Sheela Devi approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2246 of 2012 : Reported in 2012 (4) PLJR 723 . for seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of death cum retiral benefits including the family pension, gratuity, leave-encashment and PF amount after the death of her husband, who had died on 20.01.2009. The husband of Sheela Devi had joined on muster roll in the year 1980 and his services were taken in a work-charged establishment in the year 1988. He was again reverted to the muster roll in the year 2002. His case along with other employees was placed before a Three-Member-Committee in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , which recommended the regularization of the services of the husband of Sheela Devi and his services was regularized on 01.12.2006. With his death in the year 2009, the claim staked by his widow for pension and other benefits was contested by the State holding that the employee being regularized on 01.12.2006 would be covered by a resolution dated 31.08.2005 of the State Government which made all such appointees on or after 01.09.2005 amenable to the CPF Scheme namely, the Bihar Government Servant Contributory Pension Schemes, 2005. The learned Single Judge hearing the matter, vide his order dated 04.09.2012 relied upon a judgment delivered in Sheo Kumar Shukla, etc. Versus The State of Bihar & Others, (2009) 3 PLJR 187 which had not approved the application of CPF Scheme to such employees and had held that their regularization is not a fresh appointment. It had been held in the aforesaid judgment that such employees cannot be said to have entered the portals of the Government after the cut-off date when CPF Scheme would be applicable and would be deemed to have been part of the Government from an earlier date. It was only their reinduction after regularization and not a fresh appointment. Since the husband of Sheela Devi was also an appointee of an earlier time but was regularized in the year 2006, CPF Scheme was not applicable to him and the petitioner was directed to be given family pension and other death cum retiral dues including gratuity, leave-encashment etc. 13. Since the husband of Sheela Devi was also an appointee of an earlier time but was regularized in the year 2006, CPF Scheme was not applicable to him and the petitioner was directed to be given family pension and other death cum retiral dues including gratuity, leave-encashment etc. 13. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge in Sheela Devi (supra) was challenged by the State in L.P.A. No. 416 of 2013 Reported in 2013 (4) PLJR 557 . on the ground that under Rule 4 of the GPF Rules, the grant of GPF to an employee did not render his service automatically pension able and that the employee, in his life-time, had not questioned the application of CPF Scheme to him and therefore his GPF contribution was credited to his CPF account. It was unsuccessfully argued that the Circular dated 31.08.2005 making CPF Scheme applicable to the employees, superseded the earlier Circular dated 31.03.2004 under which services of the employee could have become pension able. The Division Bench put a stamp of approval on the decision of the learned Single Judge regarding continuity of relationship of the employee with the Government and therefore non-applicability of the Circular dated 31.08.2005, notwithstanding the regularization of the services of the deceased employee in the year 2006. The employee was held to have been reinstated / re-inducted and continued to work as before. The Division Bench also noted down the various stages of the liberalization of the Government's policy of regularizing such work-charged employees and giving pension to them. It was therefore held that the Circulars of 1987 and 2004 which have been referred to earlier, were never superseded by the Circular of 2005 and the State being a model employer had the responsibility to take care of the widow of its employee. While saying so, the Division Bench also expressed its displeasure over the State in not bringing before it correct facts and that the deceased employee was not given any option to chose between the two Schemes and therefore any application of CPF Scheme was deemed to have been thrust upon the employee which was not permissible. Regard being had to the status of the deceased employee viz his position in society and lack of learning, the Division Bench cautioned the Government to take only such decisions which would not multiply litigation and thereby burden the Courts of Law unnecessarily. Regard being had to the status of the deceased employee viz his position in society and lack of learning, the Division Bench cautioned the Government to take only such decisions which would not multiply litigation and thereby burden the Courts of Law unnecessarily. (Refer to State of Karnataka Versus C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 ; K. T. Veerappa Versus State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 406; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Versus Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793 ; Kesar Chand Versus State of Punjab & Others, (1988) AIR(P&H) 265; and Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Narata Singh, (2010) 4 SCC 317 ). 14. The Division Bench has consciously used the expression "qualifying for pension" all through the judgment and in conclusion, has held as follows: "In conclusion, we are of the opinion that under the Circular dated 31.03.2004, the duration of service rendered in the work charge establishment by the deceased husband of the respondent no. 1 before induction in regular establishment has to be added to the total duration of his service making it pension able entitling the Respondent no. 1 to family pension and other post retiral dues of the deceased. The Appeal is devoid of merit and the order of the Learned Single Judge calls for no interference. The Appeal is dismissed." 15. The conclusion has been extracted here to clarify that the addition of the period rendered under the work-charged establishment was all through held to be for the purposes of making the service of the petitioner pension able; meaning thereby that only such period was to be added which made the petitioner qualify for being paid pension. We say so for the reason that the successive Circulars of 1987 and 2004 of the Government were taken note of by the learned Division Bench which only spoke of addition of the period rendered under work-charged establishment for making the service pension able (qualifying period for pension) and with respect to grant of selection grade and time-bound-promotion, the entire period could be added. 16. Against the aforesaid judgment, the State preferred SLP (Civil) No. 29497 of 2013 which stood dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 29.09.2013. 17. An attempt was, thereafter, made by the State to have the Division Bench Judgment reviewed. 16. Against the aforesaid judgment, the State preferred SLP (Civil) No. 29497 of 2013 which stood dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 29.09.2013. 17. An attempt was, thereafter, made by the State to have the Division Bench Judgment reviewed. In the review petition, another Division Bench disapproved of the government taking the deficit period of service from the work-charged employment only to make the service of the husband of the widow pension able and held the same to be wrong. 18. It appears from the judgment in review that the widow of the employee had also preferred a contempt application and the review was preferred during the pendency of such contempt application. The addition of only the deficit period was held to be incorrect. This statement by the Bench hearing the review was but made en-passant. The major reason for the Review Court to reject such application was that it could not have sat in appeal over the judgment of a Bench of co-eval strength, more so, when the State had lost the battle before the Supreme Court. 19. It was this passing reference about the addition of deficit period being wrong that perhaps gave rise to an opinion that the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 416 of 2013 Reported in 2013 (4) PLJR 557 was of the view that the entire service period under the work-charged establishment was required to be counted and not only for the purposes of making up the deficit for the services of an employee to qualify for pension. 20. This, to us, appears to be erroneous. The reasons for the same would be posited later in the judgment. 21. It may also be noted that the review order was passed on 21.09.2015, by which time, the Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repeal) Rules, 2013 and the follow up notification of the Finance Department vide Circular No. 10710 dated 17.10.2013 had already been issued. 22. Under 2013 Circular, referred to above, again the history of liberalized induction of work-charged employees in regular establishment by extending the cut-off date and affording them pension by adding up the deficit period from the work-charged employment, has been reiterated. However, in Rule 5(v) of the Circular, a new mode of addition of the deficit period was formulated. 22. Under 2013 Circular, referred to above, again the history of liberalized induction of work-charged employees in regular establishment by extending the cut-off date and affording them pension by adding up the deficit period from the work-charged employment, has been reiterated. However, in Rule 5(v) of the Circular, a new mode of addition of the deficit period was formulated. The relevant rule 5(v) is extracted here-in-below for the sake of completeness: ^^5¼ikap½ bu dfeZ;ksa ij iqjkuh isa'ku ;kstuk ykxw gksxhA ÁR;sd ikap o"kksZ dh dk;ZHkkfjr lsok ds cnys ,d o"kZ dh fu;fer lsok dh ekU;rk nsrs gq, isa'ku ,oa xzsP;wVh ykHk dh x.kuk dh tk;sxhA blds ckotwn ;fn iqjkuh isa'ku ;kstuk ds rgr isa'ku Lohd`fr gsrq fu/kkZfjr U;wure isa'ku Ánk;h lsok 10 o"kZ iw.kZ ugha gks rks ml gn rd U;wure lsok tksM+dj isa'ku dk ykHk fn;k tk,xkA** 23. For affording 5 years of the service rendered under work-charged establishment, one year would be counted in regular services for the purposes of counting qualifying period for pension and gratuity. By resorting to such a method also, if some period is left short, further period from the work-charged employment shall be taken in order to qualify the service of minimum of 10 years for affording pension to an employee. However, the aforesaid Circular was made applicable only to those employees of the work-charged establishment who were appointed till 11.12.1990 and who were still in service after the issuance of the resolutions as well as consequential orders by the controlling authority. Later, in order to avoid any hardship to such employees who would have retired or died before issuance of consequential order of regularization by the controlling department, the Rule was extended and made applicable to such employees who would be in service as on 17.10.2013 and who would retire or would have died before the issuance of the consequential order by the controlling department. This explanation was given by virtue of Resolution No. 6151 dated 03.08.2016. 24. In Binod Kumar (supra), which decision has been taken note of in the referral order, the constitutional validity of the 2013 Rules was questioned along with the Notification No. 10709 dated 17.10.2013. By the aforesaid rule, the State Government has repealed the Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions Rules, 1949. 24. In Binod Kumar (supra), which decision has been taken note of in the referral order, the constitutional validity of the 2013 Rules was questioned along with the Notification No. 10709 dated 17.10.2013. By the aforesaid rule, the State Government has repealed the Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions Rules, 1949. The challenge was particularly to paragraph 5 of the Resolution of 2013, referred to above, providing for counting of one year under regular service for five years of work-charged service. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners therein that such a mode of calculation would reduce the actual benefits by reducing the service rendered during the work-charged establishment if counted in its entirety, which was stated to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it treated the employees on whom such rules were applicable differently from the other work-charged employees who were inducted in regular establishment earlier. The challenge was sought to be repelled by the State on the ground that even though such mode of calculation for the deficit period was provided for but even after the introduction of new Scheme of pension, the work-charged employees have been treated similarly and have been put under the old pension Scheme. The Division Bench, hearing the writ petition, came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity with the Rules either with regard to the competence of the State in framing such Rules or any other Constitutional limitation. 25. The arguments of the writ petitioners challenging the validity of the aforesaid Rules on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Habib Khan Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others in Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2017 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7434 of 2016 was also answered by the Bench with the reason that in the aforesaid case, Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations in the State of Uttrakhand was under question and the Supreme Court was of the view that the employees were entitled for addition of the period of work-charged services for the purpose of computation of qualifying service. 26. Since the Rules and Circular of 2013 do provide, in a fair measure, such provision which would make up for the deficit for the qualifying period of pension, the decision of the Government cannot be said to have fallen foul of the judgment in the Habib (supra). 26. Since the Rules and Circular of 2013 do provide, in a fair measure, such provision which would make up for the deficit for the qualifying period of pension, the decision of the Government cannot be said to have fallen foul of the judgment in the Habib (supra). No irrationality was found by the Division Bench in counting 5:1 for qualifying service as persons falling in the group on which such Rule or Circular was applicable would be a class in itself as they have been appointed after the imposition of prohibition of any such appointment in a work-charged establishment. It was also held by the Bench that the Resolution has only extended the date of appointment in a work-charged establishment for regularization from 22.02.1984 to 11.12.1990 and would apply only to a separate group of people. 27. In Habib Khan (supra), the appellant's service under the work-charged establishment was directed to be counted for computing the qualifying service for pension by the State / Service Tribunal. This was unsuccessfully challenged by the State vide Writ Petition No. 24 of 2007. The SLP against the order also stood dismissed. 28. In the meantime, a Full Bench of Uttarakhand High Court had taken a view that the period of work-charged service would not be counted for computation of the period of qualifying service. In view of the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment of Uttarakhand High Court, a review of the order dismissing the Writ Petition No. 24 of 2007 was sought and allowed by order dated 27th of July, 2012, which order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Habib Khan (supra). The petition, however, was dismissed as withdrawn. 29. The matter again came up before the Supreme Court for consideration in view of a Full Bench Judgment of Uttarakhand High Court. 30. The Supreme Court found the issue to be cadit questio in view of pari materia provisions contained in the Punjab Services Rules having been struck down by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand Versus State of Punjab and Ors., (1988) 5 SLR 27] and such judgment having been sustained by the Supreme Court. 31. Again, in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. 31. Again, in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. Versus Narata Singh & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 317 ] it was held that the employee would be entitled to reckon the period of work-charged services for the purposes of computation of qualifying service for grant of pension. 32. Herein again, in all the judgments, the reference is to the qualifying service and not for counting of the complete period under work-charged establishment for pension. 33. It would also be apposite here to understand the nature and the status of a work-charged employee. A work-charged establishment is materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment and the employees engaged in a work-charged establishment are recruited differently and with different service conditions. A work-charged employee constitutes a separate class and no parity could be drawn between a work-charged employee and an employee of a regular establishment (refer to Jaswant Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., (1980) AIR SC 115 and State of Rajasthan Versus Kunji Raman, (1997) AIR SC 693). Normally, the tenure of work-charged employee is co-terminus with the completion of the Scheme / Project but for humane considerations and taking into account that such work-charged establishments have been continued by the Government for a pretty long time, the services rendered under such establishment have been made pension able (refer to Full Bench Judgment of Patna High Court in Mobina Khatoon Versus State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases, 2019 1 PLJR 1015 . 34. In the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment, on grounds of equity, in the absence of any Rule, it has been held that till appropriate Rules in that regard is framed by the Government, a work-charged employee who has completed 10 years or more continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and who has not been inducted in regular services will be paid pension and his family, in case of the death of work-charged employee, would be paid family pension. In case of death of such employees, the heirs and dependents would be entitled to claim death cum retiral benefits but will not be able to claim appointment on compassionate ground in the absence of any Scheme framed by the Government. 35. In case of death of such employees, the heirs and dependents would be entitled to claim death cum retiral benefits but will not be able to claim appointment on compassionate ground in the absence of any Scheme framed by the Government. 35. In the background of the aforesaid decision by the Full Bench of Patna High Court, the Government has come out with a Scheme dated 3rd of July, 2019, which has been gazetted, giving pension to such work-charged employees who were appointed on or before 11.12.1990 and had served for 10 years against one post and making them available the benefits of the services of an employee under regular establishment even though such employees have never been inducted into regular establishment. The old pension Scheme has been made applicable to them with certain caveat and conditions and with respect to them also, the Circular No. 10710 dated 17.10.2013, referred to above which provides for a special mode of making up for the deficit for pension able service, has been made applicable. 36. What is necessary to note is that all these Circulars are in the nature of beneficent decisions of the Government of the day without any corresponding right for the same. At no point of time, the Government came up with any Circular indicating that the entire service period under work-charged establishment would be counted for calculating the service period of such employees who have been inducted in regular establishment for the purposes of making the service pension able. It was only at one point of time by a Division Bench, while hearing a review petition, that a passing reference has been made which we have noticed earlier in the judgment. The fallacy of the aforesaid observation is that the entire Circular of 2004 was not taken into account for coming to such conclusion. The Division Bench which decided the Review Petition was also not shown Rules and Circular of 2013 regarding the service conditions of a work-charged employee. The learned Division Bench in Review failed to notice the qualifying words, namely: ^^vgZd vof/k** in Circular of 2004 and the other cognate expression, namely: ^^dk;ZHkkfjr lsok dh x.kuk isa'ku dh jkf'k fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, dh tk,xh** rFkk ^^DokfyQkUbx ihfj;M** used in various other Circulars which have been referred to above. 37. The learned Division Bench in Review failed to notice the qualifying words, namely: ^^vgZd vof/k** in Circular of 2004 and the other cognate expression, namely: ^^dk;ZHkkfjr lsok dh x.kuk isa'ku dh jkf'k fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, dh tk,xh** rFkk ^^DokfyQkUbx ihfj;M** used in various other Circulars which have been referred to above. 37. We have also noticed that in Kesar Chand; Narata Singh; and Habib (supra), the Supreme Court has also referred to "qualifying period". 38. Thus, at no point of time, was it ever conceived of that the entire service period under a work-charged establishment would be taken into account for counting the service period for pension. Counting of the work charged tenure is only for the purposes of making the service pension able which otherwise would not have been possible. The same may not be true for the purposes of grant of selection grade or time-bound-promotion. 39. Seen from this prism, there would not appear to be any difference, much less any substantial difference in the exposition of law in Sheela Devi (supra) and Binod Kumar (supra). 40. We also do not find any anomaly in the Rules and Circular of 2013 providing for a special mode of counting of the period for making up the deficit for the period to qualify for pension, as such Clause in the Rules and Circular are broad enough to pitch in as many number of years from the work-charged tenure for the purposes of addition for making the services pension able, as required. This is only, we repeat, a beneficent measure which has been promulgated and which ought to be appreciated. 41. With respect to the passing reference made by the Division Bench in Review, we deem it necessary to quote Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Quinn Versus Leathem (All ER petition 7 G-1), which is as under: "Before discussing Allen v. Flood and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make; and one is to repeat what I have very often said before-that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." 42. In Ambica Quarry Works Versus State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213 , the Supreme Court observed that the ratio of any decision has to be understood in the background of the fact of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what is actually decides and not what logically follows from it. 43. With similar refrain, the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University Versus Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 has observed that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. A passing reference should not be treated as an euclid's formula or ipsissima verba. 44. Precedent has to be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice and as has been said by Hidayatullah, J., in Abdul Kayoom Versus CIT, (1962) AIR SC 680 and that one must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else one will find oneself lost in thickets and branches. 45. It is also required to be noted that the present set of petitions relate to work charged employees who were appointed after the ban by the State Government in 1984 on the appointment in work-charged establishments. They, therefore, are a different class of employees and even otherwise, they would not be entitled to claim parity with such employees who were appointed prior to such ban having been imposed. The Rules of 2013, referred to above, is clearly applicable to all the employees of the work-charged establishment who were appointed on or before 11.12.1990 and after 22.10.1984. The appointees prior to 22.10.1984, therefore, would not be affected by the Rules of 2013. 46. The Rules of 2013, referred to above, is clearly applicable to all the employees of the work-charged establishment who were appointed on or before 11.12.1990 and after 22.10.1984. The appointees prior to 22.10.1984, therefore, would not be affected by the Rules of 2013. 46. The reference, thus, is answered in the following terms: (a) With respect to addition of the number of years of service rendered in a work-charged tenure to the service under regular establishment, for the purposes of making the service of such regular employees pension able, there is practically no substantial difference in the pronouncements of the two Division Benches in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) and Binod Kumar (supra). (b) For the purposes of pension, only such period from the work-charged tenure would be added for making the service of an employee which has been regularized to qualify him for pension. (c) While adding such period of work-charged tenure, the modus would be of granting / counting one year for every five years of service rendered under work-charged establishment. If that also leaves some shortfall, then further number of years of work-charged tenure can be taken / added for making the service of the employee pension able. (d) For the purposes of giving benefit to an employee for promotion on the selection grade and time bound-promotion, the entire period of service rendered as work-charged employee can be counted. (e) The Rules and Circular of 2013 are valid as has been held in Binod Kumar (supra). (f) The Rules and Circular of 2013 are applicable to such work-charged employees who have been appointed after 22.10.1984 and prior to 11.12.1990. 47. The cases are remitted to the concerned Benches for applying the law as declared. Per : Hon'ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra, J. 48. Divergent views created in successive judgments of this Court with regard to the work charged employee have once again brought us together to resolve and cull out the true spirit and import of the circulars which were issued by the State of Bihar with respect to the counting of the period of work-charge service rendered by them for the purposes of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pension able service. 49. 49. Having carefully scanned the opinion of Brother Justice Ashutosh Kumar who has given a meticulous exposition of the Circulars and the Rules which have led to certain dichotomies in judicial pronouncement rendered by two Division Benches of this Court, I find myself in full agreement with his opinion and would also like to pen down my views in this regard. 50. What was observed by a learned single Judge while referring the matter to a Larger Bench for an authoritative opinion was the recent judgment dated 04.01.2018 rendered in the case of Binod Kumar and others Vrs. The State of Bihar and others in L.P.A. No.12674 of 2017. CWJC The Division Bench while interpreting and taking into consideration the Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Condition (Repeal) Rules, 2013, had given a considered opinion that the period spent under the Work-Charged Establishment would be counted to the extent of the shortfall in the qualifying period of service for grant of pension which shall be made by adding of that period spent under the Work-Charged Establishment. This opinion ran contrary to the earlier decision of this Court rendered in another Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Sheela Devi and other analogous cases (Civil Review No.210 of 2014, arising out of LPA No.416 of 2013, Reported In 2013 (4) PLJR 557 vide judgment dated 21.09.2015). In this case, the Court, while considering the issue with regard to the counting of the period of Work-Charge service for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pension able service, had held that the entire period spent under the Work Charged Establishment be taken into account for calculating the pensionary benefits. Thus, the latter decision in the case of Binod Kumar (supra), wherein it has been held that the entire period spent under the Work-Charged Establishment would not be taken into account, upsets the pronouncement in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) and created a totally new picture with a divergent view and necessitated an authoritative pronouncement in this matter, as in view of the earlier judgment, those who were under Work Charged Establishment had to await the decision, whereas those whose cases were under consideration, were stuck with the latter decision rendered in the light of Circular No.10710 dated 17.10.2013. 51. 51. As pointed out by learned Brother Justice Ashutosh Kumar, the Government by means of successive circulars endowed the Work-Charged employees such benefits right from the year 1949 to the year 1980. It appears from Order No.505 dated 06.03.1980 that those Work-Charged employee who came into the regular establishment after 01.04.1971 and thereafter, who did not have the qualifying years i.e., ten years of regular service and 15 years of temporary service would be given the benefit of work-charge tenure, to make it pension able along with gratuity. This relaxation was made and was in tune with Rule 203 of the Bihar Pension Rules. 52. The Government Resolution No.3058 dated 22.10.1984 further liberalized and widened the ambit by providing for regularising the work-charged employees, who had continuously worked against one post for five years in different Work-Charged Establishments but at this point, it was also decided by Circular No.8954 dated 23rd July, 1975 that no post in Work-Charged Establishment shall be filled up or created. 1987 Circular issued by the Finance Department, in its Resolution No.1503 dated 27.03.1987, declared that whole period rendered in Work-Charged Establishment be computed for the purpose of computation of qualifying period for grant of pension. 53. At this point of time, I would like to endorse the opinion as expressed by my learned Brother that the Circular of 1987 never intended that the entire service period rendered in the Work- Charged Establishment is to be counted for pension also. This, in my opinion, is evident from the circular itself which clearly states that the qualifying period should be calculated in such a manner and added only to that extent and to the extent of the shortfall for which it is accepted, the concerned recipient of pension would have to refund the proportion of provident fund, if at all tendered to be deposited back into the Treasury. Clause 3(a) is clear on this issue. The Circular of 2004 issued by the Finance Department is nothing but a reiteration of the Circular of 1987, in which similar benefit has been extended to the work-charged employee. 54. Clause 3(a) is clear on this issue. The Circular of 2004 issued by the Finance Department is nothing but a reiteration of the Circular of 1987, in which similar benefit has been extended to the work-charged employee. 54. I have also carefully perused the case of Sheela Devi, widow of one such work-charged employee, whose services were earlier engaged in 1988 but reverted to muster roll in 2002, came to be regularised by virtue of the decision of a 3-Member Committee in terms of the direction of Uma Devi (3) and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. His regularization in 2006 made him eligible to the benefit of CPF Scheme of 01.09.2005. It was held by the learned single Judge that the husband of Sheela Devi being an earlier appointee than 2006, was not amenable to the CPF Scheme and was eligible for family pension and other death-cum-retirement benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment etc. The judgment of the single Judge was put to test in LPA No.416 of 2013, but the challenge placed by the State Government was rejected and finally the Division Bench while rejecting the challenge placed by the State Government and taking into note the various stages of liberalisation extended to Work-Charged Establishment in granting pension to them and the methodology of counting their service so as to bring the employee in the framework of qualifying service so as to entitle him to pension rejected LPA No.416 of 2013. : Reported in 2013 (4) LPJR 557 The SLP also met with a similar fate, but with the oblique method of evading the contempt proceedings, the State filed a review which, however, was also rejected as judgment in LPA No.416 of 2013 having been affirmed by the Apex Court, had attained finality and a co-ordinate Bench could not sit in appeal over the same. 55. It is important to remember that another rule had already surfaced being Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Condition (Repeal) Rules, 2013 which was followed by the Finance Department notification dated 17.10.2013 contained in Circular No.10710. 55. It is important to remember that another rule had already surfaced being Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Condition (Repeal) Rules, 2013 which was followed by the Finance Department notification dated 17.10.2013 contained in Circular No.10710. This Circular of 2013, by extending the cut-off date of induction of Work Charged employees in regular establishment, sought to grant them pension by adding up the deficit period from their work charge tenure but with a rider in Rule 5 which method came to be resisted as the State Government in Clause 5, had now provided that five years service rendered under the Work-Charged Establishment would be only treated to be one year for counting and adding up in regular service so as to bring it within the purview of "qualifying period" for pension and gratuity. 56. The case of Binod Kumar (supra) sou6ght to deal with this issue and the circular wherein rules were sought to be tested for its reasonableness, but the Court held that the Circular No.10710 dated 17.10.2013 is wholly legal and valid as the Rules have repealed 1949 provisions and the cut-off date, which has been fixed as 11.12.1990, made the Circular applicable only to those employees of Work-Charged Establishment who have been appointed on 11.12.1990 who were still in service. The Circular of 2013 only extended the benefit of such employee to 17.10.2013 but clause (5) fixed the parameters for fixation in the ratio 5:1, which was fully endorsed by the Division Bench in the case of Binod Kumar (supra). 57. Brother Justice Ashutosh Kumar has rightly noted that each of the judgments while dealing with the question of pension in the case of the Work Charged employee, the term "qualifying service" has been made the key-word. However, I would supplement my said opinion by stating that the Circular/Resolution which have been coming down the times in favour of such work-charged employees, were but a beneficial provision/benevolence offered under Rule 203 of the Bihar Pension Rules, which was but an exercise of discretion of the State Government and not by virtue of any right which had accrued to them. 58. It would be necessary to revert back to the decision in the similar Full Bench judgment in the case of Mobina Khatoon Vs. 58. It would be necessary to revert back to the decision in the similar Full Bench judgment in the case of Mobina Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (2) BLJ 9 (FB), wherein this Court while answering a reference to Rule 203 of the Bihar Pension Rules had permitted those who had been working in the Work-Charged Establishment to be granted pensionary benefits till the time fresh rules were framed in this regard. 59. It appears that the State Government has come up with rules wherein it has come up with a scheme of 3rd July, 2019 giving pension to such work charged employee who was appointed on or before 11.12.1990 and had served for ten years against one post and had been made available the benefits of regular establishment to be entitled to the Old Pension Scheme with certain pre-conditions in terms of Circular No.10710 dated 17.10.2013. 60. I also find myself in full agreement with the view expressed my Brother who has clarified that the ratio of the judgment in Sheela Devi and Binod Kumar both aimed at achieving the same object and granting only "qualifying period" and it was purely in ignorance of the Rules and Circulars that the Review Court could not appreciate the true import of the keywords in the Circular. 61. The reference as answered by our Brother Justice Ashutosh Kumar clearly is in line with my thinking and I am fully supportive of his finding that the entire service could not be counted for the purpose of qualifying service, but it would only be counted to the extent of service for the purpose of making it "pension able." Thus, the five to one ratio as stated in the Circular for those employees for whom the cut-off date had been extended is but a measure to make this category also avail the pensionary benefit. 62. Having observed thus, I would proceed to state that any power to an authority is also coupled with a corresponding duty to comply with the requirement of law. However, we must also note that any department sic on that score cannot be whittled down on the argument that no vested right has been curtailed. 63. I am also reminded of an observation in the case of State of Punjab Vs. However, we must also note that any department sic on that score cannot be whittled down on the argument that no vested right has been curtailed. 63. I am also reminded of an observation in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Ram Lubbaiya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 , wherein their Lordships held as follows : "It is also not normally within the domain of any court to weigh the pros and cons of a policy or to assess it to test the degree of beneficial or equitable effect for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling, based on however sound and good reasons, except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional statutory or any other provisions of law." 64. Furthermore, it is the settled principle of law as enunciated in Union of India Vs. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, (2001) AIR SC 1772, which is as follows: "The truth or correctness or adequacy of the material available before the authority exercising administrative power cannot be revalued or weighed by court. Even if some of the materials on which administrative action is taken is found to be irrelevant, court will still not interfere so long as there is some relevant material available on which the action can be sustained. The court will presume the validity of the exercise of power but shall not hesitate to interfere if invalidity or unconstitutionality is clearly demonstrated. If two views are possible, the court shall not interfere by substituting its own satisfaction or opinion of the authority exercising the power." Having considered the rationale of the afore-mentioned judgments and in agreement with the narrations as made by my Brother Justice Ashutosh Kumar, my opinion stands thus recorded.