1 2025:CGHC:35590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1649 of 2023 Saheblal Suryavanshi S/o Late Shri Late Rusau, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village And Post Semartal, Police Station Koni, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Manatralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Treasury, Account And Pension Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Accountant General State of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. M. Asha, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Lav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Asha, P.L. for the State/respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.26 11:02:36 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee and thereafter, he has been regularized in the regular establishment of work and contingency employment with respondent Department, therefore, as per Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules 1976, past services of the petitioner should have been counted for the purpose of pension. He would further submit that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the issue raised in this writ petition in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the writ appeals were also preferred by the State before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and same have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, as such, he shall comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that against the orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench as well as Hon'ble Division Bench, the State has filed SLP (Civil) Nos.8677- 8678/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The operative part of the order reads as under:- "Delay condoned. Issue notice to the respondents. In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the impugned order". Thus, he would pray for keeping the proceeding in abeyance. 3 4. Considering the submissions and the fact that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered with the issue which is already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I am of the view that there is no justifiable reason to keep this writ petition pending. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8677-8678/2023 will be applicable mutatis mutandis in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and his entitlement to get additional pension will be governed by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8677-8678/2073. It is also directed that if SLP (C) No. 8677- 8678 of 2023 is decided in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall extend the benefit to the petitioner without any further delay. It is also directed that if the grievance of the petitioner still exists, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition raising his grievance. 6. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty as granted in favour of the petitioner. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh