ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, at the instance of the appellant 1 [Nadeem Khan] is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2024 2 [impugned order] of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. By the impugned order, an intra-court appeal 3 [Writ Appeal No. 2365 of 2023] preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers (who are the respondents herein), was allowed. The judgment and order of a Single Judge of the same High Court dated 6th September, 2021 allowing a writ petition 4 [W.P. No. 4130 of 2017] of Nadeem Khan was reversed and thereby, his writ petition dismissed. 3. We are tasked to decide whether, on facts and in the circumstances, the Division bench was justified in interfering with the order under challenge before it. 4. The facts triggering this appeal lie in a narrow compass. 4.1 Nadeem Khan’s father 5 [Nazir Khan] (since deceased) died-in-harness on 12th August, 2006 while he was discharging the duty of a driver. Nadeem Khan had applied for compassionate appointment, soon thereafter. Such application was rejected on 23rd June, 2015 on the ground that Nazir Khan was working as work charged and contingency paid employee and hence, the benefit of compassionate appointment was not available to Nadeem Khan. Aggrieved by such rejection, Nadeem Khan invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Single Judge of the writ court recorded the following findings: “........The service book of the petitioner’s father is perused; wherein, the appointment of the petitioner’s father was on the post of Helper in the pay scale of Rs.45-3-60 on 12.4.1973. The increments were sanctioned to him and after calculation of arrears the same is also being paid. He was promoted on the post of Helper to the post of Driver in the pay scale of Rs.155-2½-4-180-5-240-6-252 and have joined the post of Driver on 2.8.1980. There is nothing in the service book to show that the petitioner’s father was working as a daily wager or a contingency paid employee. The return filed by the State Government is silent upon the aforesaid issue. There is nothing in the service book to show that the petitioner’s father was working as a daily wager or a contingency paid employee. The return filed by the State Government is silent upon the aforesaid issue. No document, not even the appointment order of the petitioner is being filed to demonstrate that petitioner’s father has worked as a daily wager or a contingency paid employee.” 4.2 Resting on such a finding, the Single Judge concluded that the respondents before the writ court had acted illegally in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the matter was relegated to the respondents to reconsider the case of Nadeem Khan for grant of compassionate appointment treating Nazir Khan to be a regular employee in the establishment and to decide the claim of Nadeem Khan within two months from date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 4.3 The respondents before the Single Judge applied for a review 6 [RP No. 654 of 2022] of the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2021. To such petition, they annexed orders dated 2nd August, 1980 (Annexure RP-2) and 9th November, 2021 (Annexure RP- 4) in support of their contention that Nazir Khan was appointed and continued in the work charged establishment and not in the regular establishment. By an order dated 20th April, 2023, the review petition came to be rejected. 4.4 The order of the Single Judge allowing the writ petition was carried in appeal. In the impugned order, the Division Bench while pondering whether Nazir Khan was a member of the work charged and contingency establishment or of the regular establishment, noted that Nazir Khan was initially appointed as a work charged helper in the pay scale of Rs.45-3-60 on 12th April, 1973 (Annexure P-1). 4.5 The Division Bench also noted that Nazir Khan was later appointed to the post of work charged driver by order dated 2nd August, 1980 (Annexure RP-2) on a fixed salary of Rs.155 per month. Further, it was noted that Nazir Khan was given the benefit of promotion vide order dated 9th November, 2001 (Annexure RP-4) and that such document reveals Nazir Khan as a driver (at Sr. No. 16) working under the work charged establishment. Further, it was noted that Nazir Khan was given the benefit of promotion vide order dated 9th November, 2001 (Annexure RP-4) and that such document reveals Nazir Khan as a driver (at Sr. No. 16) working under the work charged establishment. 4.6 A submission was advanced on behalf of Nadeem Khan before the Division Bench that Nazir Khan, during the period 1973 to 1980, was a member of the regular establishment in the Public Works Department 7 [PWD] and that in 1980 he was appointed as a driver under the work charged establishment. The Division Bench found such submission without any basis. According to it, if Nazir Khan had been initially appointed under the regular establishment and later on appointed as driver under the work charged establishment, such an action would have surely been challenged by him. However, if relegation from the regular establishment to the work charged and contingency establishment did not leave Nazir Khan aggrieved, and he did not question the same contemporaneously, any objection after lapse of more than four decades would not be countenanced in law. It was based on such a finding that the Division Bench proceeded to allow the intra-court appeal by the impugned order. 5. Before looking at the merits of the claim raised by Nadeem Khan and proceeding to decide the same, it would be useful to understand what a work charged establishment is and who are work charged employees. Drawing from our experience on the bench, we find that nowadays, with advancement of time, there has been emergence of new concepts which seemingly have replaced the old systems through which employees used to be engaged on casual/ad hoc/temporary/daily wage/contractual basis. In order to avoid claims of regularization and/or absorption in service of such employees, outsourcing is the order of the day. 6. Be that as it may, in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, (1979) 4 SCC 440 a three-Judge Bench had the occasion to observe that a work-charged establishment broadly 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 borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the works. The work- charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. 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 the 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 benefits under the Employees State Insurance Schemes. 7. Bearing such meanings of a work-charged establishment and work charged employee in mind, we have looked into the extracts from the service book of Nazir Khan for the purpose of a proper decision on the appeal. These appear at pages 24, 25 and 26 of the paper book and page 12 of the counter affidavit of the respondents. 8. Page 24 reveals that Nazir Khan was appointed as a helper in the pay scale of Rs.45-3-60 vide an order dated 12th April, 1973 and he joined the duty on the same date. The printed part of page 24 (top half) contains columns as well as handwritten part (below), which reads as follows: Name of appointment and scale of pay Whether substantive or officiating and whether permanent or temporary If officiating state the substantive appointment Pay in substantive appointment Other emoluments falling under the term pay Addl. Pay for officiating Date of appointment Signature of Govt. Employee Nazir Khan Helper Appointed as a helper on the pay scale of Rs.45-3-60 vide E.E.P.W.O on I .. illegible .. order no. 2839/A/E/M dated 12.4.73 & duty joined on 12.4.73. (handwritten) Nothing appears from the aforesaid document which would even remotely suggest that Nazir Khan’s appointment was either substantive or officiating or permanent or temporary. At the same time, there is also no indication of Nazir Khan being a work charged employee. The finding of the Division Bench being based on no evidence, there is a clear error in holding that Nazir Khan was appointed as a work charged helper. 9. Adverting our attention to page 25 now, we find that Nazir Khan while working as helper was promoted as driver as per the (undated) order in the pay scale of Rs.155-2½-160-4-180-5-240-6-252 per month with effect from 2nd August, 1980. 10. 9. Adverting our attention to page 25 now, we find that Nazir Khan while working as helper was promoted as driver as per the (undated) order in the pay scale of Rs.155-2½-160-4-180-5-240-6-252 per month with effect from 2nd August, 1980. 10. Next, when we look at the document at page 26, it reveals that Nazir Khan’s pay was revised and on pay revision, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 as per sanction order dated 26th June, 1998; also, his pay was fixed at Rs.4,110/- per month with effect from 1st January, 1996 with next increments falling due on the dates mentioned therein. 11. Both these documents (at pages 25 and 26) do not give any indication of Nazir Khan having been appointed under work charged establishment. Once again, the Division Bench fell in error in holding contrary to facts on record. 12. Turning our attention to page 16 of the counter affidavit of the respondents, which is in vernacular but the translated English version being available at page 12 (Annexure R-1), it is found that: “Order As per the instructions contained in Memorandum No. MP-5-4-1-PCC/98 dated 27.03.2001/29.03.2001 of Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department (Pay Commission Cell) and Memorandum No. 30- Estt. of Driver Promotion/2000-13311 dated 30.10.01 of Chief Engineer (North), PWD, MP, Gwalior and this office letter No. 9332 dated 8.11.01 C.E., on the basis of recommendation of Departmental Committee, promotion in pay scale is approved from the date shown in the following table against their names. S. No. Name & Post Current Pay Scale Promotion Pay Scale Promotion Pay Scale Approved Date 1. 2. 3. ... ... ... 15. *** *** *** *** 16. Nazir Khan 3050-75- 3950-80-4590 3500-80-4700-100-5200 19.04.99 ... ... ... 21. *** *** *** *** On promotion, pay fixation on the upgraded pay scale will be determined at the next stage in the upgraded pay scale. However, if promotion is made in this pay scale in future, then pay fixation will be done as if the concerned employee has been in the full pay scale and he has not got the benefit of pay fixation as a result of promotion. No change will be made in the designation of the concerned employee as a result of this promotion. Sd/- Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Kuntha Sagar Letter No. 9352/ P.D. Estt. Dated: 9.11.01 Copy: 1. No change will be made in the designation of the concerned employee as a result of this promotion. Sd/- Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Kuntha Sagar Letter No. 9352/ P.D. Estt. Dated: 9.11.01 Copy: 1. Chief Engineer (North), Public Works Department, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior for information with reference to his memorandum no. 30.10.2001. 2. Sub-divisional officer PWD......Subdivision forwarded this for further information and necessary action and wrote that the service book of the concerned person should be re- examined to see if such benefits have been given in full or not, if the benefit has been given then the benefit will not be payable to the employee against whom departmental inquiry is going on. Such employees should not be given the benefit of promotion and their orders should also not be distributed to them. 2. Forwarded by Sri to Sub-Divisional Officer PWD for information. Sd/- Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Kantha Sagar” 13. Having read the whole of the contents of the document extracted above, issued by the Executive Engineer of PWD Division, Kantha Sagar dated 9th November, 2001, we wonder whether promotion in the manner sought to be given would have at all been given to an employee who is a member of the work charged establishment. 14. Drawing inspiration from the decision in Jaswant Singh (supra), we may safely hold that: (i) Occasion for entering the particulars of the members of the work charged establishment or contingency establishment in service books may not arise since service books are maintained for regular employees whereas work charged employees are engaged for a particular work. It is sort of a roll or register of employees that is maintained by the establishments engaging work charged employees, which serves its utility after the work is over. (ii) Promotional pay scale is ordinarily not approved, if indeed a member of the work charged establishment or contingency establishment is granted higher pay. For any increment in pay, that would invariably be made through an executive order indicating the higher pay to which the member is entitled, without any reference to the current pay scale. In fact, having regard to the nature of employment, work charged employees are not fitted in a pay scale but given fixed pay. Their pay is different from pay scales in which regular employees are fitted. In fact, having regard to the nature of employment, work charged employees are not fitted in a pay scale but given fixed pay. Their pay is different from pay scales in which regular employees are fitted. (iii) If a work charged or contingent employee has committed any misconduct, termination simplicitor would inevitably be the preferred action and not a departmental enquiry. A member of a State service cannot be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank, without an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution. The condition regarding satisfaction that no departmental enquiry is in progress against any of the 21 employees, who were favoured with promotional pay scale, is itself sufficient reason to infer that the respondents had proceeded to treat such 21 employees as if they are regular employees of the PWD establishment. 15. We have, thus, no doubt that Nazir Khan was not a work charged employee, as erroneously held by the Division Bench; and, in the absence of any other clinching material placed by the respondents before us, we also have no doubt that Nazir Khan was a member of the regular PWD establishment. 16. A submission was sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondents by Ms. Elker, learned counsel that Nazir Khan had not been appointed following due procedure. This submission merits immediate rejection. It was not the case of the respondents before the High Court that Nazir Khan had not been appointed in 1973 by following due procedure. Even otherwise, on the basis of the documents placed on record, we unhesitatingly hold that the submission also does not merit consideration having regard to the action of the respondents in continuing Nazir Khan in service for 33 years immediately prior to his death. Nazir Khan continued in service without judicial intervention and even the decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 which was rendered by this Court a couple of months prior to Nazir Khan’s death, also acknowledges in paragraph 53 that those in service for more than 10 years without judicial intervention would be entitled to regularization of service as a one-time measure. Even if we are to accept that Nazir Khan was a work charged employee, he deserved to be treated as a regular employee by dint of long service rendered by him. Even if we are to accept that Nazir Khan was a work charged employee, he deserved to be treated as a regular employee by dint of long service rendered by him. It has not been shown, even remotely, that there was any break of service from 1973 to 2006. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, the claim of Nadeem Khan could not have been spurned on the specious ground that Nazir Khan was a work charged employee. We are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with the judgment and order of the Single Judge. 18. Hence, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge restored. 19. As a sequel thereto, the respondents are directed to proceed to consider the claim of Nadeem Khan in accordance with law, within eight weeks from date. 20. If found eligible in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment that was subsisting on the date Nadeem Khan applied for appointment and also if he is found suitable for being offered an appointment commensurate with his qualifications in any Class III or IV post, appropriate action shall follow. Should Nadeem Khan be found ineligible, he shall be duly informed of the reasons therefor. We clarify that unavailability of a suitable vacancy shall not be a ground for rejection. 21. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of.