1 2025:CGHC:59035 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4855 of 2020 Smt. Malti Bai Sinha W/o Late Shree Dhaniram Sinha Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Kalyanpur, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya , Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department (B And R), Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Durg Division Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Khairagarh Division, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For State/Res : Shri Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the State would submit that WA No.32/2024 preferred by the State challenging the order dated AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.12.08 15:47:38 +0530 2 18.1.2023 passed by the learned Singh Judge in WPS No.7649/2022 has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.1.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State had preferred SLP (Civil) Diary No.34177/2025 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.8.2025 has stayed the impugned order passed in WA No.32/2024 by observing that the identical issue is pending in SLP (Civil) Diary No.9859/2023. Thereafter, in a Bunch of Writ Petitions bearing WPS No.10696/2019 and other connected cases (decided on 14.10.2024), the Coordinate Bench while disposing of the said writ petitions observed that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8677-8678/2023 will be applicable mutatis mutandis in respect of the writ petitioners and their entitlement to get additional pension will be governed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP. 2. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that WA No.32/2024 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in light of the earlier order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the Division Bench in WA No.281/2013 (Lakhanram Sahu and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Against the said Writ Appeal, the State preferred SLP (Civil) No.11541-11550/2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.3.2017, on both grounds of delay as well as merits. In Lakhanram Sahu (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench has taken a view that after the promulgation of the Chhattisgarh (Work-charged and Contingency paid Employees) 3 Pension Rules, 1979 (in short “the Rules, 1979”) read with Chhattisgarh Vibhag Karyabharit Tatha Aakasmikta Se Vetan Pane Wale Karmchariyon Ki Bharti Tatha Seva Shart Niyam, 1975 (in short “the Rules, 1975”), an employee acquires ‘temporary’ status after five years of service in the work charged establishment by operation of law and further, the term ‘absorption’ has been replaced by the term ‘permanent’ in accordance with Rule 6(1)(i) of the Rules, 1975. Under Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 1979, it is prescribed that even if, the service rendered as a temporary employee is of less than six years, it shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post. 3. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that in WA No.32/2024, the respondent therein was appointed as a Daily Wage Employee and the case of the present petitioner is also similar as he too was appointed as Daily Wage employee. He would further submit that in the said case, the State advanced a submission that the position of the respondent therein, having been appointed as a Daily Wager Employee stands on a different footing from that of temporary employee and permanent employee for the purpose of the Rules, 1979. However, since the said submission was not accepted in the aforesaid Writ Appeal, the State preferred SLP (C) No.8677-8678/2023 and the order dated 31.1.2024 was stayed. 4. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the Coordinate 4 Bench in WPS No.10696/2019 and other connected cases vide order dated 14.10.2024 disposed of the writ petitions with a direction that if SLP (C) No.8677-8678/2023 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is decided in favour of the petitioner(s), the respondents shall extend the benefit of the same to the petitioner(s) without any further delay. Furthermore, this Court has also disposed of WPS No.990/2020 in terms of the said order dated 14.10.2024, vide order dated 20.11.2025. He prays that the instant petition may also be disposed of in similar terms. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would not oppose the aforesaid legal proposition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that a liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner to raise her grievance, if any, in accordance with law. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the identical issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petition in terms of the order dated 14.10.2024 passed in WPS No.10696/2019 and other connected cases. Ordered accordingly. 7. A copy of the order dated 14.10.2024 passed in WPS No.10696 of 2019 be placed on record of the present writ petition. 8. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash