ORDER : (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) The State of Jharkhand has challenged the order dated 27th June 2022 passed in W.P(S) No.922 of 2014. 2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent with a prayer for retiral benefits on death of her husband who was employed under work- charged establishment. 3. Before the writ Court, the respondent endeavoured to make out a case on the basis of judgment by a Full Bench of this Court in “Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand” (2005) 3 JLJR 38 (Jhr.). 4. The State of Jharkhand, however, set-up a technical plea that the husband of the respondent died on 30th September 1991 before he could have completed 10 years of service which is mandatory for regularization of the employees under the work-charged establishment. 5. The writ Court has referred to concluding portion of the judgment in “Ram Prasad Singh” to hold that the husband of the respondent who had completed more than 5 years of continuous service in the work- charged establishment qualified for a right of consideration for taking over his services in the permanent establishment and, while so, the dependants and legal heirs of such employees who had worked for 5 years under the work-charged establishment were entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits. 6. The writ Court has held as under: “7. From perusal of paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment, it is clear that if Work-charged employees has completed for more than five years of continuous service against one post in the Work-charged establishment, he has right to be considered for taking over in service in the permanent (regular) establishment irrespective of the dates of appointment. Further it is also apparent that on the retirement/after death of a work-charged employees working against a post in regular scale of pay, their dependents and heirs are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits such as pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment apart from GPF and Group Insurance, if otherwise fulfil the requisites qualifying period to earn pension gratuity and leave encashment etc. Since the husband of the petitioner worked against a post in the Regular Scale the petitioner is entitled to get the death benefits in terms of the judgment of this Court. 8. Since the husband of the petitioner worked against a post in the Regular Scale the petitioner is entitled to get the death benefits in terms of the judgment of this Court. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact I dispose of this writ application holding that petitioner’s case is covered by the Full Bench Judgement of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra) and the petitioner is entitled to receive all benefits in view of paragraph no.17 (iii) of the aforesaid judgment. The respondent no.3 will decide the claim of the petitioner including that of Pension/Family Pension and quantify the same and will ensure that if any amount is payable, the same should be paid within a period of twelve weeks from today.” 7. Mr. P.A.S Pati, the learned G.A-II has referred to the observations of the Full Bench in “Ram Prasad Singh” to submit that the minimum pensionable period of service for any employee working in the work-charged establishment is 15 years. 8. Mr. P.A.S Pati, the learned G.A-II has referred to the following observations by the Full Bench in “Ram Prasad Singh”: “15. …............. DEATH-CUM-RETIRAL BENEFITS ETC. …................... The “conditions of qualification” for pension has been prescribed under Section II Chapter IV of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Under Rule 58 three conditions have been stipulated to qualify for pension, as quoted hereunder: “58. The service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: First-The service must be under Government. Second-The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third-The service must be paid by Government.” However, State Government has right to declare that any specified kind of service shall qualify for pension under Sub-Rule (1) to Rule 59. Second-The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third-The service must be paid by Government.” However, State Government has right to declare that any specified kind of service shall qualify for pension under Sub-Rule (1) to Rule 59. It has already been pointed out that the members of the temporary establishments have no claim for pension as per Rule 58 of the Bihar P.W.D Code, but the State Government taking into consideration the fact that large number of temporary government servants are employed under different schemes, which are in existence for 15-20 years and will cause hardship if they are not allowed pension after retirement, in exercise of power, conferred under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, allowed the benefit of pension to temporary government employees vide Memo No.Pen.1024/69/1179F dated 12th August, 1969, as quoted hereunder: “*Regarding:-Declaration of temporary service of a Government servant who is not confirmed as pensionable. Under the existing pension rules, a temporary Government servant if not confirmed in any post, is not entitled to pension unless his services are declared pensionable under rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules. 2. There are a large number of temporary Government servants employed under different schemes which are in existence for the last 15-20 years, and it will cause hardship to them if they are not allowed after their retirement. 3. The State Government after careful consideration have, therefore, been pleased to decide that, if the service of the temporary or officiating government servant who is not confirmed in any post is continuous and is more than 15 years, it will be considered as pensionable under rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules. 4. These orders will be applicable to Government servants retiring on or after 12th August, 1969 [*Vide Memo No. Pen 1024/69/11779F, dated 12.8.1969.]” …....................... …............ …........................” 9. The right to pension is in the nature of a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India – it's not a bounty [refer, “Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others” (1971) 2 SCC 330 ]. 10. In “D.S. Nakara v. Union of India” (1983) 1 SCC 305 a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “31. 10. In “D.S. Nakara v. Union of India” (1983) 1 SCC 305 a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “31. From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced to 10 months under liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure.” 11. While such is the object behind pension to an employee for his past services, denial of death-cum-retiral benefits to the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased employee would definitely be in violation of the constitutional mandate and against the rule of equity and good conscience. It is not denied that the husband of the respondent was appointed in the year 1983 as Chowkidar-cum-Khalasi in the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation at Deoghar Division, which was a work-charged establishment. His name was included at serial number 34 in the list of employees issued vide letter dated 27th May 1992 of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Dumka. In the writ petition, there are references of the orders dated 15th January 1992, 4th December 2003, 15th April 2010, 17th May 2010, 16th December 2010 and 20th August 2014 to demonstrate that the husband of the respondent no.1 was discriminated and post-retiral benefits were illegally withheld. In the writ petition, there are references of the orders dated 15th January 1992, 4th December 2003, 15th April 2010, 17th May 2010, 16th December 2010 and 20th August 2014 to demonstrate that the husband of the respondent no.1 was discriminated and post-retiral benefits were illegally withheld. We further find that the husband of the respondent was working against a post on muster roll and he had completed the minimum period of service in the work-charged establishment for regularization. 12. Therefore, we have this in our mind that the Courts do not take cognizance of trivial issues and, therefore, must exercise caution before interfering with any order passed by the writ Court and not merely because some error has been pointed out by the appellant. 13. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances in the case, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in this matter and, accordingly, L.P.A No.615 of 2022 is dismissed – however, this order shall not be binding on the State of Jharkhand as a precedent whenever a similar claim is raised in future.