JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Letter No.545 dated 09.05.17 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of Respondent No.4, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.4 has refused to extend the retiral benefits cum pension to the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to extend him retiral benefits-cum-pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other admitted dues as he has superannuated on 31.01.14. 3. Fact of the case as has been delineated in the writ petition is that a Letter bearing No.10101, dated 22.07.1988, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mungher was issued by the Project Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar mentioning therein that certain posts were created for the purpose of extension of Block, in which one of the posts was of Village Extension Worker. Thereafter, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar issued a Letter bearing No.9133 dated 06.08.1988 (Annexutre-2), addressed to all the District Officers/Deputy Commissioners, to appoint Agricultural Graduates to the post of village extension worker. Petitioner was a graduate in Agriculture and accordingly applied for the post of village extension worker before the concerned authority. In light of Letter No.9133 dated 06.08.1988, petitioner was legally and validly appointed to the post of village extension worker vide Letter bearing No.788 dated 19.05.1989 (Annexure-3) issued by the Respondent No.2. Since petitioner was appointed on the basis of being an agricultural graduate to the post of village extension worker in light of the aforesaid Letter No.9133 dated 06.08.1988 of the Agricultural Department, Government of Bihar, therefore, he was always treated and considered as Government servant (Jansewak) of the Agricultural Department. Petitioner was holding additional charges of Block Agricultural Officer along with other posts and his work was also found satisfactory, which is apparent from Letters dated 08.09.04, 11.08.06, 02.01.08 and 13.01.10 (Annexure-4 Series) and as such his name was recommended for promotion to the post of Block Agricultural Officer and similar posts by the concerned authorities. After completing his unblemished service, petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2014. It is case of the petitioner that though he has already superannuated on 31.01.2014, but has not been granted arrears of salary for the month of January 2006 to January 2014 and as such he could not made any claim for grant of retiral benefits-cum-pension and other monetary benefits immediately after his superannuation. It is case of the petitioner that though he has already superannuated on 31.01.2014, but has not been granted arrears of salary for the month of January 2006 to January 2014 and as such he could not made any claim for grant of retiral benefits-cum-pension and other monetary benefits immediately after his superannuation. Petitioner also made applications before the Respondent No.4 to grant him retiral benefits, along with a copy of the Judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No.4833 of 1992 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. However, representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Respondent No.4 vide his Letter bearing No.545, dated 09.05.2017, on the ground that petitioner was not appointed to the post of Jansewak. 4. Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was validly appointed against sanctioned post of the government which was approved by the Rural Development department, Government of Bihar vide Letter No. 4879 dated 17.04.88. Length of service of the petitioner was confirmed by the State government as he uninterruptedly worked as employee of the State government since 19.05.89 uptill his superannuation on 31.01.14. Learned counsel submits that petitioner started getting his salary from the treasury head of the State government immediately after his appointment uptill his superannuation. Petitioner was treated as a government employee of the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) as he came under the direct control and supervision of the State government. Learned counsel further submits that from the Letter No. 1-08 (DRDA)/12/23/Aa, dated 18.06.2012, issued by the Rural Development department, Government of Jharkhand it is evident that the DRDA and its employees are functioning and getting salary by the fund provided, together by Central Government and the State Government. Further, from the Letter No.10 (DRDA)/2012/27/Aa, dated 26.06.2012, it appears that the State Government is providing fund to the DRDA for payment of salary to the Village Extension Worker. Learned counsel further argues that the two letters clearly depicts that petitioner is the government employee and comes directly under the supervision and control of the State government and not the employee of DRDA. It has further been submitted that the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Rajya Jansewak Sangh and ors. Vs The State of Bihar and ors. It has further been submitted that the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Rajya Jansewak Sangh and ors. Vs The State of Bihar and ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4833 of 1992, has held that “once the petitioners have been appointed as government servants, the petitioners have acquired the status of the government servant and the said status cannot be changed during the tenure of employment”. Learned counsel further argues that terms and condition of service of Jansewak (petitioner) has been fixed vide Letter No. 10622 dated 10.11.1984 issued by the Rural, Re-construction and Panchayati Raj department, Government of Bihar wherein Jansewaks and as such they have been treated as government servants and now the respondents cannot change their status. Petitioner was appointment to the post of village extension worker (Jansewak) which is a pensionary post and as such petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid benefits. It has further been stated that it was duty of the respondents to deduct GPF from the salary of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be held responsible if GPF has not been deducted from his salary 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Sunil Singh, AC to learned SC (Mines) submits that during his entire service career, petitioner never ever questioned about non-deduction of GPF from his salary. He was appointed to the post of Village Extension Worker within IRDP in light of Bihar Government’s Agriculture Department Letter No. 9133, dated 06.08.1980 but for the said post approval was given vide Bihar Government’s Rural Development Department’s Letter No. 4879 GRA Vi. Dated 17.04.1988. Learned counsel further submits that DRDA is merely a registered organization and petitioner was given the benefits of CPF only and is not at all entitled for the benefits of pension etc. as granted to the other government employees. Petitioner was appointed as a Village Extension Workers within IRDP and was not a Jansevak and as such not entitled for any benefits at par with Government employees. Learned counsel further submits that salary for the months of January, 2006 to January, 2014 have already been paid to the petitioner, which is evident from Annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that salary for the months of January, 2006 to January, 2014 have already been paid to the petitioner, which is evident from Annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel submits that so far the decision rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 4833 of 1992 is concerned, the same is not applicable in case of the petitioner as he was an employee of DRDA, which is merely registered organization and is not a pensionable service at par with the government employees. 6. Be that as it may, from perusal of Annexures-1 and 2 of the writ petition, it appears that petitioner was appointed as a Village Extension Worker on a fixed salary of Rs.580 – 860 on a sanctioned post, which is clear from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Contention of learned counsel appearing for the State that petitioner is not a Government servant is not accepted to this Court also in view of the fact that the issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4833 of 1992 and the Hon’ble Patna High Court decided the issue observing therein in paragraph-13 as under: “13. The question is that at the time of appointment to government service, the service can be a matter of contract but once the appointment is made, the government servants acquire a status. Here the petitioners have been appointed as Government servant which fact has not been denied by the respondents. Once the petitioners have been appointed as government servants, the petitioners have acquired the status of the government servant and the said status cannot be changed during the tenure of employment and especially in this case where admittedly such a change has been brought about without the consent of the petitioners. So, the impugned action of the respondents in purporting to change the status of the petitioners from that of government servants and the attempt of the respondents to treat the petitioners as employees of the Agency is wholly unreasonable and not permissible in the eyes of law. … … …” 7. As a cumulative effect of aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the Letter No.545 dated 09.05.17 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of Respondent No.4, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda is hereby quashed and set aside. … … …” 7. As a cumulative effect of aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the Letter No.545 dated 09.05.17 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of Respondent No.4, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda is hereby quashed and set aside. However, respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for extending retiral benefits taking into consideration the Judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and particularly paragraph-13 thereof and also Annexures-2 and 3 annexed with the writ petition and to decide entitlement of the petitioner accordingly. Needless to say if respondents come to an inference that case of the petitioner is similar to that of the C.W.J.C. No. 1833 of 1992 and taking into consideration Annexures-2 and 3, as petitioner had been appointed as a government servant and if petitioner is held entitled for retiral benefits, the same may be extended to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.