1 2025:CGHC:60157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3583 of 2020 1 - Smt. Gangotri Bhagat W/o Late Shri Prakash Bhagat, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Navtimunda, Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer In Chief, Public Health Engineering Department Mantralay, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bilaspur Circle Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Raigarh Division District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.12.11 16:15:14 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 11/12/2025 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner from the respondent department. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner for grant of family pension and other service benefits of the her husband with interest in view of the order passed in Writ Appeal No 281/2013 and other connected matters viz. Lakhanram Sahu & Others Vs. State of C.G. & Other, order passed by the State Government dated 26.05.2018, order passed on dated 10.08.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1611/2015 viz. Sadanand Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters decided, order dated 30.11.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6643/2017 viz. Smt. Rambati Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5907/2017 viz. Union of India & Others Vs. Munni Devi and other connected matter. 3 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the State would submit that WA No.32/2024 preferred by the State challenging the order dated 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. 3. 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- 4 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) 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. 4. 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. 5 5. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the Coordinate 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 this petition may also be disposed of in similar terms. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the State and considering the fact that the identical issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this 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 Priyanka