JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam along with Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department [PWD] for the respondent nos. 1 to 6; and Mr. B. Das, learned counsel representing Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General [A&E] for the respondent no. 7. 2. The petitioner herein is the widow of one Late Bidang Basumatary. 3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner as the widow of Late Bidang Basumatary seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant pension and other benefits for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband as a Work-Charged employee under the Public Works Department [Building], Kokrajhar Building Division, Kokrajhar till his death. Another Directions have also been sought for regularization of the services of the petitioner's husband at least for one day prior to his death and to consider the service period rendered by the petitioner’s deceased husband as a Work-Charged employee as qualifying service. 4. The basis for seeking the above reliefs is an Office Order no. 128 of 1998-99 dated 20.06.1998, whereby and whereupon the petitioner's husband came to be appointed as a Work-Charged Section Assistant. By the Office Order, Late Bidang Basumatary came to be appointed as a Work-Charged Section Assistant in the post of one Amdadur Rahman, another Work-Charged Section Assistant who had already been transferred from PWD [Building], Kokrajhar Building Division. The Office Order was issued under the hand of the Executive Engineer, PWD [Building], Kokrajhar Building Division. The Office Order further mentioned that Late Bidang Basumatary would be paid a Scale of Pay of Rs. 1065/-20-1225-30-1345-EB- 30-1435-40-1635-50-2035-60-2095/- per month plus other allowances, as admissible under the rules with effect from the date of joining and he was posted in the office of Gossaigaon PWD [Building] Sub-Division. 4.1. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband, while working as a Work-Charged Section Assistant under the PWD [Building], Kokrajhar Building Division, expired on 26.02.2018 after continuously working for a period of 19 years 8 months 4 days. 5. 4.1. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband, while working as a Work-Charged Section Assistant under the PWD [Building], Kokrajhar Building Division, expired on 26.02.2018 after continuously working for a period of 19 years 8 months 4 days. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner's husband had rendered nearly twenty years of uninterrupted and continuous services as a Work-Charged employee in the Public Works Department [PWD], the services of the petitioner's husband are to be regularised at least for one day prior to his death and thereafter, grant pension and other benefits counting the period of services he had rendered during his lifetime as a qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits. 6. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , [2019] 10 SCC 516 ; and Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand , [2018] 1 SLR 724. He has also referred to two instances wherein the respondent Public Works Department [PWD] had regularised the services of the deceased employees, who had died prior to regularization, by creating supernumerary posts for the purpose of regularisation of their services for one day in order to extend pensionary benefits to the families of those deceased employees. He has submitted that the petitioner's husband was appointed against a sanctioned post which was left vacant due to the transfer of another Work-Charged Section Assistant. It has been contended that the petitioner's husband was appointed against a sanctioned post is discernible from the fact that from time to time, the petitioner's husband’s pay was revised from time to time. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents have contended that from the Office Order dated 20.06.1998, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner's husband was purely temporary and it was a condition that his services would be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. In any view, an appointment in a work-charged establishment is completely different from a regular appointment and there cannot be any sanctioned post in a work-charged establishment. The decisions in State of Nagaland and others vs. Nishevi Achumi , [2022] 18 SCC 371 ; and State of Assam vs. Upen Das and others , 2020 [5] GLT 605; have been cited. The decisions in State of Nagaland and others vs. Nishevi Achumi , [2022] 18 SCC 371 ; and State of Assam vs. Upen Das and others , 2020 [5] GLT 605; have been cited. It is submitted that the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal no. 1/2022 [ Ujala Narzary vs. State of Assam and others ] is squarely on the point and the factual matrices obtaining in Ujala Narzary [supra] has been specifically referred to. 8. On the perusal of the documents submitted in support of similar instances, it is noticed that the respondent PWD had earlier regularised services of two Work-Charged employees, namely, Late Rajendra Ram and Late Harichandra Sarma for one day preceding their date of death by creating supernumerary posts in order to extend pensionary benefits to their families. In Nishevi Achumi [supra], the respondent was the wife a work-charged employee who died-in-harness on 28.08.2005 without regularisation of his services. The respondent's wife claimed for regularisation of the services of her husband and for grant of family pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has declined the prayer for posthumous regularisation and consequently, the claim for pensionary benefit. 9. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as an Work-Charged employee on 20.06.1998 and till his death on 26.02.2018, he continued to serve as a Work-Charged employee. 10. The distinction between employment in Work-Charged establishment and employment in regular employment has been outlined in the decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman , [1997] 2 SCC 517 , in the following manner :- 6. A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this Court in Jaswant Singh vs. Union of India, [1979] 4 SCC 440, 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 appointment 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. Thus a work-charged establishment is materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment. * * 8. 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. Thus a work-charged establishment is materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment. * * 8. A work-charged establishment thus differs from a regular establishment which is permanent in nature. Setting up and continuance of a work-charged establishment is dependent upon the Government undertaking a project or a scheme or a 'work' and availability of funds for executing it. So far as employees engaged on work-charged establishments are concerned not only their recruitment and service conditions but the nature of work and duties to be performed by them are not the same as those of the employees of the regular establishment. A regular establishment and a work-charged establishment are two separate types of establishments and the persons employed on those establishments thus form two separate and distinct classes….. 11. In view of such distinction, any contention regarding similarity in the service of the petitioner’s deceased husband as Work-Charged employee with that of a regular employee cannot be countenanced. 12. At this stage, the fact situation involved in Ujala Narzary [supra] need a mention. The husband of the appellant was appointed as a Work-Charged Section Assistant on 12.05.1997 by an Office Order dated 12.05.1997 and he was working in Kachugaon [R] Sub-Division under Kokrajhar PWD [R] Division in the Scale of Pay of Rs. 1065/-20-1225-30-1345-EB-30- 1435-40-1635-50-2035-60-2095/- per month. The services of the appellant’s husband was extended and renewed from time to time. It was during his service tenure as a Work-Charged Assistant, the appellant’s husband expired on 06.05.2017. The appellant approached the Court by filing a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6193/2021 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to prepare and pay pension and other unpaid retirement benefits like gratuity, group insurance, pension, etc. The writ was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by an Order dated 24.11.2021 and the appellant carried the matter before the Davison Bench of by way of an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench after considering a nos. of precedents, took notice of the fact that the appointment of the appellant’s husband made vide Office Order dated 12.05.1997 as a Work-Charged employee contained a condition that appointment of the appellant’s husband was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without showing any reason thereof. The Division Bench after considering a nos. of precedents, took notice of the fact that the appointment of the appellant’s husband made vide Office Order dated 12.05.1997 as a Work-Charged employee contained a condition that appointment of the appellant’s husband was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without showing any reason thereof. Finding no merit in the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench rejected the case of the appellant. 13. As there are similarities in the case of Ujala Narzary [supra] and the present writ petitioner; and a decision of the Division Bench is binding on this Court, this Court has no other option but to follow the binding decision of the Division Bench rendered in Ujala Narzary [supra]. 14. In view of the above, the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties are not necessary to be deliberated upon. 15. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.