JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Shatakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State of Jharkhand. 3. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance an appropriate writ/Rule/Direction particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the order contained in Memo No. 42 dated 8.1.2015 (Annexure-13) issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for fixation and payment of family pension has been rejected in utter violation to the order dated 4.9.2014 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(S) No. 3433 of 2012 and the judgment of Full Bench reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 38 . And for a further direction to the respondents to immediately and forthwith fix and pay the Family Pension and Gratuity with an interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner till the actual payment as well as cost for delayed payment. And for a further direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the deceased husband of the petitioner in regular establishment from work charge establishment which is pending since 2000 itself and thereafter to consider the case of the one of the children of the deceased employee for appointment on compassionate ground. And for any other relief or reliefs to which she may be found entitled to.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved this court in W.P.(S) No. 3433 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2014 wherein it was clearly recorded that the petitioner’s grievance is confined to the claim of death-cum-retiral benefits of her deceased husband who is said to have died as work charge employee on 26.05.1997 while working in the office of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Sahebganj and the matter was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 2, Principal Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization/ Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand with a fresh representation together with all supporting documents including the judgement passed by Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6826 of 2002 and other analogous cases reported in 2005 (3) J.L.J.R. 38 . 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the representation was made and the impugned order as contained in Annexure- 13 dated 08.01.2015 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the said order does not even refer to the aforesaid Full Bench Judgement of this Court which has been specifically referred to while disposing of W.P.(S) No. 3433 of 2012. The learned counsel submits that the present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench Judgement. He also refers to the Full Bench Judgement Annexed as Annexure- 11 to this petition. While referring to the Full Bench Judgement, he has referred to the issues before the Hon’ble Full Bench at para 5 of the aforesaid Judgement and the relevant issue for the purposes of this case is issue no. (c). He submits that the issue no. (c) has been answered by the Hon’ble Full Bench vide paragraph no. 15 in favour of the similarly situated claimants as that of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the facts of one similarly situated claimant in W.P.(S) No. 3963 of 2004 which was subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Full Bench. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the fact that while considering the case of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P(S) No. 3433 of 2012, the respondent authority has not considered the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid Full Bench Judgement. 8. During the course of hearing also, the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the law which has been laid down by this Court in the Full Bench judgement. He submits that the husband of the petitioner was admittedly not regularized during his lifetime and therefore, the petitioner being his widow is not entitled to death-cum-retiral benefits. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. He submits that the husband of the petitioner was admittedly not regularized during his lifetime and therefore, the petitioner being his widow is not entitled to death-cum-retiral benefits. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 submits that it is for the State Government to take a decision and therefore, whatever has come from the State Government, the respondent no. 5 has nothing to say. Findings of this Court 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3433 of 2012 as well as the impugned order, it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died on 26.05.1997 while working as Work Charge employee in the post of Road Roller Khalasi since 21.04.1982. This Court, while considering the W.P.(S) No. 3433 of 2012 disposed of the same on 04.09.2014 and extensively referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Singh and Others reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 38 (F.B.) (High Court). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgement passed in W.P.(S) No. 3433 of 2012 is quoted as under: “In such circumstances, after hearing the parties, it appears that petitioner's grievances are now confined to claim of death cum retiral benefits of the deceased- husband, who is said to have died as Work Charge Employee on 26.5.1997 while working in the office of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Sahebganj. Therefore, without commenting upon the merit of the claim of the petitioner, she is granted liberty to approach the respondent no.2, the Principal Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization / Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand with a fresh representation together with all supporting facts and documents as also the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.S. No. 6826 of 2002 and other analogous cases reported in 2005(3) J.L.J.R 38 within a period of 3 weeks. On receipt of such representation, the respondent no.2, the Principal Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization / Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand shall consider the same in accordance with law and after proper verification of the records relating to the petitioner's husband pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks, thereafter, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. In case the matter is decided in favour of the petitioner, the death cum retiral dues on account of death of her husband shall be disbursed within 6 weeks, thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.” 11. This Court finds that while disposing of the writ petition, this Court had specifically referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench and the respondent was directed to pass a reasoned order. Upon perusal of the reasoned order, this Court finds that the concerned respondent has not referred to, much less, distinguished the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench. Even during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner so as to bring home any point regarding non-applicability of the ratio of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench. 12. Upon perusal of the Full Bench Judgement, this Court finds that a specific issue was considered by the Hon’ble Full Bench at para 5 (c) i.e. “Whether a work-charged employee or his nominee or heir is entitled to the death-cum-retiral benefits, such as, pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, group insurance amount etc. to which a temporary government employee is entitled?” The said issue, after elaborate considerations of various circulars and decisions taken by the State Government, has been decided in para 15 of the Full Bench Judgement and it has been ultimately held that the work charged employees and after their death, their heirs/dependants are entitled for same death-cum-retiral benefits, to which a temporary government employee is entitled, such as, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc., if otherwise found eligible and qualified for such benefits. It is not a case of the respondents that otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled for any death–cum-retiral benefits of her husband. 13. So far as the arguments of the respondents that, the husband of the petitioner was, in fact, never absorbed, is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit considering the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench which clearly held that the work charged employee is entitled to certain benefits. Had he been absorbed, then he would have seized to remain as a work charged employee. Had he been absorbed, then he would have seized to remain as a work charged employee. It further appears from the facts of the cases which were under consideration before the Full Bench particularly with regard to payment of death-cum-retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc., in those cases also, the work charged employees were not absorbed in the department in spite of specific decisions/circulars of the State Government and they retired/died as work charged employees only. Therefore, the argument of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner having not been absorbed cannot be a reason to deny post death benefits of her husband to the petitioner and is accordingly rejected. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order as contained in Memo No. 42 dated 08.01.2015 as contained in Annexure- 13 is hereby set-aside. 15. The respondent no. 2 is directed to ensure payment of post-death benefits to the petitioner including family pension and gratuity etc. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and forward it to the respondent no. 5 for authorization of payment. 16. In case the payment is not made to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the dues right from 04.09.2014 when the earlier writ petition was decided. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order along with a representation before the respondent no. 2. 17. This writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to be paid to the petitioner along with post death benefits. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.