1 2025:CGHC:24750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 124 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Excise, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Finance And Planning, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner (Excise), Office Of Commissioner (Excise) Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Excise Officer, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Anita Sharma W/o Late Shri Taran Prasad Sharma Aged About 48 Years (Retired Constable - Excise) Housewife, R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Nagar, Sikolabhata, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 For Respondent : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 17/06/2025 1. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioners/State of Chhattisgarh and 04 others seeking review of the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.418 of 2024 (Smt. Anita Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), as the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 08.10.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 648/2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/State and while dismissing the appeal, liberty has been granted to the appellants/State to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge raising all the grounds as raised in Writ Appeal No.648/2024. Hence, this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that vide impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.418 of 2024 (Smt. Anita Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), learned Single Judge has directed to count service of the petitioner’s husband from the year 1999, i.e. immediately after completion of his five years service from the initial date of appointment relying upon the Circular dated 02.03.2005 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh as well as 3 judgment rendered by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2003) 4 MPLJ 376. He further submits that aforesaid circular was issued only to count 10 years service for those contingency paid employees who were subsequently regularized, but they could not complete 10 years of service as a regular employee to get pension under Chhattisgarh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. He further submits that the aforesaid circular has wrongly been interpreted by the learned Single Judge and without providing opportunity to the State/petitioner herein to file reply, impugned order dated 05.02.2024 has been passed. Writ Appeal No. 648/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Smt. Anita Sharma) preferred by the State against impugned order has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench granting liberty to the petitioner to file review petition against the impugned order, therefore, this review petition has been filed. Learned State counsel further submits that since circular dated 02.03.2005 has been wrongly interpreted in the impugned order and the same has been passed without providing opportunity to the State/petitioner herein to file reply, therefore, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.418/2024 may be recalled and it be decided after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/State of Chhattisgarh by filing reply. 4 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed reply to the review petition, relying to reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submits that the circular dated 02.03.2005 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, itself has directed to count service of the contingency paid employee rendered by him as contingency service for granting pension. A similar issue has also been dealt by learned Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No.88/2019 (Annexure-R/3) whereby, the order passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.8277/2018 was upheld, hence, he prayed that review petition may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 5. Undisputedly, impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.418/2024 (Smt. Anita Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) was passed without providing opportunity to file reply to the State/respondent therein. That order was challenged in WA No.648/2024 which has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench granting liberty to file review petition against the impugned order. Since, the impugned order was passed without providing opportunity to the State/respondent therein to file reply of writ petition and liberty has been granted by Hon’ble Division Bench, therefore, having considered the contention of learned counsel for the State/petitioner herein, this review petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned order dated 5 05.02.2024 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ Petition (S) No.418/2024 (Smt. Anita Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) is recalled. 6. Registry is directed to restore Writ Petition (S) No.418/2024, in its original number and list the case as per the roster. 7. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi