1 2025:CGHC:47866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3680 of 2023 1 - Jagdish Das Vaishnav S/o. Late Shri Ramdas Vaishnav Aged About 65 Years R/o. Village - Sarai, Patera, Post - Jhajhpurikala, Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, 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 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/09/2025 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record in respect of pension and other retiral dues of petitioner. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the pension payment order dated 04/01/2022 (Annexure-P/1). 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to count after 5 years from date of initial appointment of petitioner. Hon'ble Court may kindly further direct to recalculate the benefit of pension and other retiral dues after taking into consideration the entire service period rendered by him as a daily wager (after 5 years from the date of initial appointment as daily wager) and Hon'ble Court may further direct to pay the arrears of pension, gratuity and other retiral dues with 12% interest. 10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court” 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 3 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 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 4 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. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat