1 2026:CGHC:5130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1093 of 2026 1 - Prem Prakash Tripathi S/o Late Patith Pawan Tripathi Aged About 67 Years Retired From The Post Of Embankment Inspector, R/o Baba Para, Jail Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner 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.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Government Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to recalculate the petitioner pensionable services from the date of initial appointment and accordingly pay the entire consequential benefits. 2 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee and thereafter his services have been regularized with respondent 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 the bunch of these writ petitions in their favour and thereafter Writ Appeals preferred by the State also came to be dismissed, as such they shall comply with the order passed in Writ Appeal. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that against the order passed in Writ Appeal, 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 of Writ Appeal. 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 submissions of learned counsel for respective parties that the issue raised in this writ petition is identical to the issue, pending consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that there is no justifiable reason to keep this writ petition pending. 3 5. 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 petitioner and his 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. 6. It is also directed that if SLP ( C ) No. 867-8678 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 grievances. 7. With the aforesaid observation, direction and liberty granted to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.02.03 12:16:05 +0530