JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Petitioner no. 1 has served the department for more than 30 years. He worked in the Work Charge Establishment from 1985 to 2009 and thereafter from 2009 his service was regularized in the regular establishment and he superannuated in the year 2018. Petitioner no. 2 was appointed in the year 1985 in Work Charge Establishment and work till 2009 thereafter in 2009 he was regularized and superannuated on July, 2019. Petitioner no. 3 was appointed on 30.11.1985 in Work charge establishment and work till 2009 thereafter in 2009 he was regularized and superannuated on October, 2019. Now after superannuation their retiral benefits like Pension, Gratuity etc. has not been paid. 2. It is the case of the State and the Accountant General that since the petitioners have not complied 10 years in regular establishment they are not entitled for the pensions. Further additional objection has been taken that since new pension scheme has been introduced in the State of Jharkhand, petitioner are not entitled for the benefits as their regularization was done after coming into force of the new pension scheme. 3. The aforesaid ground taken by the State and the Accountant General cannot be accepted. Taking work from an employee for 30 long years and denying post retiral benefits amounts to crime. Welfare State cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own wrong and cannot deprive a person of the reitral benefits when that State has taken work from him for 30 long years. In a similar situation which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 Live Law (SC) 187 wherein after taking work from ad-hoc employees for 30 years the State refused to pay the retiral benefits, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came heavily upon the State and has passed the following order which reads as follows: “It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.” 4. Considering the said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I direct the State and the Accountant General to process the claim of the petitioners and ensure payment of the entire retiral benefits including pension, gratuity etc. within a period of six weeks from today. 5. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed.