JUDGMENT : (Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, J.) : The Petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 27-09-2018, by which claim of petitioners for giving similar benefits as extended to the employees working at Deoghar District has been rejected. The petitioners have further prayed for payment of minimum scale for the period, they had worked as a daily wager from the date of their appointment as daily wager till the date of regularization and pay arrear thereof, as it has been paid to the employees of Deoghar District. 2. The facts of the case is that the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 5 were appointed on 1-10-1978 and 1-04-1984 respectively as Khalasi in the Irrigation Department now known as Water Resources Department and the Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 were appointed on 1-04-1978, 1-08-1980, and 1-04-1979 respectively to the post of khalasi in the Water Resource Division as daily-wagers. Thereafter, Petitioner no. 1 was regularized to the post of choukidar w.e.f. 2004, whereas Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were regularized to the post of Anusewak (Peon) w.e.f. 2006 and the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were regularised to the post of Anusewak (peon) w.e.f. 2004 and getting all the benefits of a regular employee from the date of their regularization. It is specific case of the Petitioners that they were working on daily wage basis prior to 1-08-1985 and thereafter their services were regularized in view of the order passed by the Respondents dated 29-04-2004, but they were not granted the minimum pay-scale for the period, they had worked as daily wagers i.e. from the date of their initial appointment as daily wager till the date of regularization. It is further the case of the petitioners that one similarly situated person, Upendra Chourasia preferred a writ application for similar benefits for the period for which he had worked on daily wage basis and the said benefits have been extended in his favour vide letter dated 12-01-2006 and 28-08-2006 after order of this Hon’ble Court. 3. It is further the case of the petitioners that one similarly situated person, Upendra Chourasia preferred a writ application for similar benefits for the period for which he had worked on daily wage basis and the said benefits have been extended in his favour vide letter dated 12-01-2006 and 28-08-2006 after order of this Hon’ble Court. 3. It is specific case of the petitioners that earlier also the Petitioners have moved before this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 720/2009 seeking same and similar benefits as has been given to other similarly situated persons who were working at Deoghar district and the same was disposed of vide order dated 31-08-2017 with a direction that petitioners may file fresh representation before respondents who in turn shall consider their cases and pass a fresh order. In compliance of the same, the respondents vide impugned order dated 27-09-2018, rejected the claim of Petitioners on the ground that petitioners are not at par with the employee of Deoghar District and the petitioners were also not party in the writ petition, filed by one Upendra Chourasia. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this court, challenging the order dated 27.09.2018 4. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order on the ground that the persons working on daily wage basis or work charged establishment constitute same class and as such, no discrimination can be made amongst the work-charged employee or daily wage employee. The employees working in the Deoghar District before induction in work-charged establishment were also daily-wagers and they have been given minimum pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment to till regularization of their services and as such, petitioners are also entitled for the said benefits and impugned order being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, is not tenable in the eyes of law. He further submits that from the letter dated 29-09-2006, it appears that the services of employees of Deoghar district, have been regularized from the initial date of appointment and given pay scale with effect from the initial date of appointment with pay revision and consequent thereto allotment has also been made available for payment of salary etc. He further submits that from the letter dated 29-09-2006, it appears that the services of employees of Deoghar district, have been regularized from the initial date of appointment and given pay scale with effect from the initial date of appointment with pay revision and consequent thereto allotment has also been made available for payment of salary etc. for the employees of Deoghar District, but in case of the petitioners, the respondents have taken a plea that the petitioners were working as daily-wagers, is not tenable in the eyes of law as before induction in work-charged establishment, the employees of Deoghar District, were also working on daily wages. 5. Per Contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the employees of Deoghar District, with whom the petitioners are claiming parity, were working as a work-charged employee, whereas, the petitioners are daily-wagers and as such, they are not on same footing and rightly the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioners. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Further, the petitioners were engaged as daily wager workers prior to 01.08.1985 and in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP No.18154/1999, the petitioners were regularized in the services and thereafter regularly paid their salary from the date of their joining. He further submits that the employees working under work charged establishment in the Deoghar District, have been regularized on the post in question which shall be co-terminus to their employment. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Admittedly, petitioners who are daily wager though regularized subsequently are claiming parity with the work charged employees of Deoghar districts. 7. The respondents while rejecting the cases of petitioners clearly observed that service conditions of the petitioners as well as the work-charged employees are completely different. The observations and findings of the respondents cannot be faulted with in view of judgment rendered by this Court in case of Ram Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 JLJR 38 (FB). 8. The observations and findings of the respondents cannot be faulted with in view of judgment rendered by this Court in case of Ram Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 JLJR 38 (FB). 8. Before delving deep into the matter, it would be proper to examine the service conditions of the petitioners as well as of the persons with whom they are claiming parity. 9. The service conditions of Work Charged Employees who were working on a post in a regular pay-scale are different from that of a daily wages workers who were not holding any post. The work charged employees are engaged for a particular purpose upon completion of which their services come to an end. A work charged establishment means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to ‘works’. The pay and allowances of employees who are born on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the work. Further, the work-charged establishment has been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 440 which reads with as follows: “A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowance of the staff, are chargeable to works. The pay and allowances of employees who are borne of a work-charged establishment, are generally shown as a separate sub-head of estimated cost of the works.” The aforesaid definition was also noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Purushottam, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 266 . In the aforesaid two cases, there was no condition of service, framed by the State with regard to the work-charged employees. In the case of Jaswant Singh (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefit under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefit under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. However, the Supreme Court held that the work-charged employees are entitled to the benefits of the provisions, contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the instant case, the petitioners were working as daily wager and were not working against a post, hence, their service conditions are different from that of employees of Deoghar district who were working as Work Charged Employees working against a post. The employees at Deoghar district were regularized on the same post on which they were working with a condition that after their superannuation or in case of death such post will be abolished whereas this is not the case of the petitioners. 10. Further, the State Government vide Finance Department’s memo No. 1344, dated 04.02.1949 came-out with a revised service conditions for employees working under Work Charged Establishment, which reads as under: “Subject—Revised conditions of service of work-charged establishment. The existing distinction between work-charged establish-ment 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 hence forth 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 one year's approved service will be included amongst permanent Government employees. Deaths in this connection are 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.” 11. The legal propositions is not in dispute and there is no quarrel to the settled law that the service of daily wager prior to their appointment/ regularization cannot be termed as service against a substantive and permanent post. Vide F.D. Memo No. 1344, dated 4.2.1949.” 11. The legal propositions is not in dispute and there is no quarrel to the settled law that the service of daily wager prior to their appointment/ regularization cannot be termed as service against a substantive and permanent post. Whereas, the work charged employees of Deoghar district were working against a post in a pay-scale and hence, cases of the present petitioners are not similar to the employees of Deoghar district. The same also finds strength from the judgment rendered by this Court on 22.11.2016 in W.P.(S). No. 2548 of 2013 as well as judgment rendered in similar cases viz. W.P.(S). No. 2077 of 2012 and W.P.(S). No. 3314 of 2016. 12. From the discussions made above, it is crystal clear that the petitioners, working on daily wages, not holding any posts, cannot claim parity with the employees of Deoghar district. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.