1 2026:CGHC:2855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 473 of 2026 1 - Asit Kumar Vishwas S/o Late S.N. Vishwas Aged About 65 Years Retired From The Post Of Assistant Grade-Iii, Office Of Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Ganga Basin, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Account, Treasury And Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 485 of 2026 1 - Ravi Kishore Sinha S/o Late Moti Prasad Aged About 65 Years Retired From The Post Of Steno Typist, Office Of Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Ganga Bain, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Ganga Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 4 - Joint Director, Account, Treasury And Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 --- Respondent(s) (The cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Dy.A.G. & Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/01/2026 1. Since the common issue and facts of law are involved in the both the these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions for adding of their past services before their regularization on various posts in the Water Resources Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wage employees and thereafter their services have been regularized with respondent department, therefore, as per Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules 1976 past services of the petitioners should have been counted for the purpose of pension. They would further submit that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the issue raised in the bunch of these writ petitions in their favour and thereafter 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 they shall comply with the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 3 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that against the orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench as well as Hon’ble Division, 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. 5. Considering the submissions and the fact that the issue raised in the these writ petitions 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 these writ petition pending. 6. Accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve 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 mutandi in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners and their claim and entitlement to get additional pension will be governed by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C) No. 8677-8678/2023. 7. It is also directed that if SLP ( C ) No. 867-8678 of 2023 is decided in favour of the petitioners, the respondents shall extend the benefit to the petitioners without any further delay. It is also directed that if the grievance of the petitioners still exists, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition raising their grievances. 4 8. With the aforesaid observation, direction and liberty granted to the petitioners, these writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram