ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner from 31.03.2002 to 30.06.2011 and also to grant 1 st and 2 nd ACP as well as 3 rd MACP as per the provisions of applicable law along with statutory interest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on 31.08.1985 in the work- charged establishment by the respondent no. 6 - the Executive Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Khunti Division, Khunti. Thereafter, he was transferred to Tamar Inspection Bungalow vide letter as contained in memo no. 2 dated 02.01.1987 where he joined on 03.01.1987. Subsequently, the respondent no. 6 stopped paying salary to the work-charged employees including the petitioner due to which few similarly situated work-charged employees moved this High Court by preferring a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6826 of 2002. The said writ petition was decided by a Full Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.05.2005 rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2005 (3) JLJR 38 (FB) , holding inter alia that the work-charged employees, who had completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and were otherwise eligible, had the right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment, however, the work-charged employees working on daily wages and not holding any post, were not entitled to the said benefit. 3. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the said judgment of the Full Bench rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra) and he was taken over in the permanent establishment vide Office Order No. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Road Circle, Ranchi. The petitioner thereafter retired on 31.12.2018 after completing more than 33 years of service, however, he was not paid 1 st ACP, 2 nd ACP and 3 rd MACP as per the applicable provision. The petitioner filed several representations before the respondents regarding payment of arrears of salary and for grant of ACP/MACP, however, no action was taken by them. 4. The petitioner filed several representations before the respondents regarding payment of arrears of salary and for grant of ACP/MACP, however, no action was taken by them. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner was in continuous service since his date of joining on 31.08.1985 and was regularized on the post of Chowkidar vide office order dated 20.07.2011 with effect from the date of joining the service, however, payment of salary for the period between 31.03.2002 and 30.06.2011 has not been made to him due to non-allotment of fund and as such, he cannot be deprived of salary for the said period on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the engagement of the petitioner in work-charged establishment was temporary in nature and he was disengaged from duty from March, 2002 on the ground that there was no need of manpower as no project was running in the said Division. 6. It is further submitted that pursuant to the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra), the petitioner was taken over in permanent establishment vide Office Order no. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011. The petitioner submitted his joining in permanent establishment on 22.07.2011 and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2018 and as such, he worked in the permanent establishment only for 7 years, 5 months and 9 days. The petitioner did not complete the minimum qualifying period of 10 years of service in permanent establishment and hence, his prayer with respect to grant of 1 st and 2 nd ACP as well as 3 rd MACP is not sustainable in the eye of law. In fact, the petitioner had been removed from the work- charged establishment from March, 2002 and had again submitted his joining on 22.07.2011 in permanent establishment and as such, he had not worked between March 2002 to 22.07.2011. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for payment during the intervening period is not tenable on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 7. It is also submitted that work-charged establishment means an establishment the expenses of which including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to ‘works’. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for payment during the intervening period is not tenable on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 7. It is also submitted that work-charged establishment means an establishment the expenses of which including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to ‘works’. The pay and allowances of the employees which 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 temporary basis and their appointments are made for execution of a specified work. As per the very nature of their employment, the services automatically come to an end on completion of the specific work or sub-work(s) for which they are employed, whereas employment in a regular establishment is permanent in nature. 8. It is further submitted that Full Bench of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh (supra) has held that the heirs/dependents of work-charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits, if they otherwise fulfill the requisite qualifying period of service to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment. It has further been held that the dependents of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground and the said observation will suggest that the post which was taken over, ceased to exist after the death or retirement of the concerned employee. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed more than 33 years of service from the date of his initial appointment made on 31.08.1985 and as such, he is entitled for the benefit of 1 st and 2 nd ACP as well as 3 rd MACP, however, in spite of his several representations, no action has been taken by the respondents. Further claim of the petitioner is with respect to payment of arrears of salary from 31.03.2002 to 30.06.2011 along with interest. 11. The claim of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents stating that work-charged establishment and permanent establishment are two different establishments. It has been contended that the Hindi word “Parinat” has been used in the Office Order No. 51 as contained in memo no. 11. The claim of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents stating that work-charged establishment and permanent establishment are two different establishments. It has been contended that the Hindi word “Parinat” has been used in the Office Order No. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011, english word of which is “take over” whereas english meaning of the word ‘Samayojan’ is ‘absorption’. Thus, it is evident that the services of the petitioner was not absorbed against a sanctioned post. Hence, the date of his appointment cannot be taken as 31.08.1985 when he joined in the work-charged establishment, rather it can only be taken as 20.07.2011 when his service was taken over in the permanent (regular) establishment. 12. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment of learned Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra), wherein it has been held as under: 80. Thus, two of the issues, as raised above, namely, question relating to regularization of service/taking over the services of work-charged employees in the permanent (regular) establishment and payment of death-cum-retiral benefits are answered in favour of the petitioners but the issue, relating to compassionate appointment, is decided against them (petitioners). I, therefore, hold that: (i) The work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment. But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any posts, are not so entitled. (ii) The dependants of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground; (iii) The work-charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their heirs/dependants are entitled to claim death- cum-retiral benefits, such as, pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. apart from G.P.F. and Group Insurance amount, if otherwise fulfils the requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment. 13. apart from G.P.F. and Group Insurance amount, if otherwise fulfils the requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment. 13. In the aforesaid case, learned Full Bench directed for taking over the services of those work-charged employees in the regular establishment who had completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment as well as to make payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to their heirs/dependents in case of their death. However, the dependants of work-charged employees were held not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 14. Pursuant to the said judgment rendered by learned Full Bench, the petitioner was taken over in the regular establishment vide Office Order No. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011 and in the said order, it was specifically mentioned that he was taken over in the regular establishment with effect from his date of joining. It was also mentioned in the said office order that the work-charge post would automatically be abolished on the date of taking over the employee in the regular establishment and no fresh appointment would be made against the said post in any circumstance. Moreover, the said post which was taken over in regular establishment, would automatically be abolished on the death/retirement of the concerned employee. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kunji Raman , (1997) 2 SCC 517 . I have perused the said judgment wherein it has been held that “regular establishment” and “work-charged establishment” are two separate types of establishments and thus the persons employed on those establishments form two separate and distinct classes. It has been further held that in a work- charged establishment, the expenses including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The work- charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointment are made for execution of a specified work. The service condition as well as the nature of duties of the employees engaged in work-charged establishments are different from the employees of the regular establishment. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents puts further reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. The service condition as well as the nature of duties of the employees engaged in work-charged establishments are different from the employees of the regular establishment. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents puts further reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Bimli Devi (L.P.A. No. 1566 of 2015) , wherein the Bench by taking aid of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in “ Kunji Raman ” (supra) has held that the work-charged employees will be entitled to receive pension but the dependents will not get family pension after their death. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents also puts reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Krishna Nandan Singh , 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 218 and submits that the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. 18. I have perused the said judgment in which learned Division Bench by referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “ Kunji Raman ” (supra) and the judgment of Patna High Court rendered in the case of “ Bimli Devi ” (supra), has held that there is wide difference between work-charged establishment and regular establishment. It has been further held that the petitioner of the said case was working under the work-charged establishment and he was taken in the permanent establishment sometime in the year 1988 and as such, he was not entitled to get anything except monetary benefit of the post on which he was working under work-charged establishment which, according to learned counsel for the State, had already been paid to the petitioner. It has also been held in the said judgment that the meaning of ‘absorption’ is different from that of ‘taking over’ since in case of absorption, the appointees are absorbed against the regular post and the moment the decision of absorption of a post is taken, the said appointees are entitled to get all the benefits attached to the said post. Moreover, this goes to suggest that an appointee is ‘taken over’ in the service in absence of a post while absorption of the same is made against a sanctioned post. 19. Thus, it is no more res-integra that the work-charged establishment is completely different from the regular establishment. Moreover, this goes to suggest that an appointee is ‘taken over’ in the service in absence of a post while absorption of the same is made against a sanctioned post. 19. Thus, it is no more res-integra that the work-charged establishment is completely different from the regular establishment. Similarly, the service condition of an employee of work-charged establishment is also different from the employee of regular establishment. When a work-charged employee is taken over in the regular establishment, the period of service rendered by such employee in work-charged establishment is not taken as continuity in service. The said employee is entitled to get the benefit of regular establishment from the date of joining in the said establishment. 20. In the Office Order No. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011 itself, the Hindi word “Parinat” has been used, the English meaning of which is ‘take over’ and the same is completely different from the word ‘absorption’. Moreover, the said order is not under challenge before this Court and hence, the claim of the petitioner that the period of service rendered by him as work-charged employee should also be counted for grant of benefit of ACP/MACP is not legally tenable. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to resolution no. 2981/B dated 01.09.2009, wherein the Government of Jharkhand has implemented the MACP scheme with respect to government employees. It has been mentioned in the said scheme that MACP scheme will also be given to those work-charged employees whose service condition is similar to the employees of regular establishment. 22. In the case of the petitioner, he was appointed in the work-charged establishment purely on temporary basis and he did not work for the period from 31.03.2002 to 30.06.2011. Subsequently, his services was taken over in the regular establishment on 22.07.2011 and he retired on 31.12.2018. Thus, he worked in the regular establishment only for 7 years, 5 months and 9 days. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how resolution no. 2981/B dated 01.09.2009 is applicable to this case. 23. So far as the petitioner’s claim for payment of salary from 31.03.2002 to 30.06.2011 is concerned, the specific stand of the respondents is that during the said period, he has not worked. He was removed from the work-charged establishment from March 2002. 2981/B dated 01.09.2009 is applicable to this case. 23. So far as the petitioner’s claim for payment of salary from 31.03.2002 to 30.06.2011 is concerned, the specific stand of the respondents is that during the said period, he has not worked. He was removed from the work-charged establishment from March 2002. Subsequently, he submitted his joining in the regular establishment on 22.07.2011 and as such, there was no question of payment of salary to the petitioner during the said period on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The factual contention of the respondents to the extent that the petitioner had not worked for the period from 31.03.2002 to 30.06.2011, has not been controverted by him. It has, however, been claimed by him that he is entitled for the salary during the said period since his service was required to be regularized from the date of his initial joining on the post of work-charged employee. I do not find any substance in the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner since the Office Order No. 51 as contained in memo no. 792 dated 20.07.2011 does not contain the word ‘regularization’, rather it has been mentioned in the said order that the employee is taken over in regular establishment with effect from the date of joining and the said order is not under challenge before this Court. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.