1 2026:CGHC:13411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6372 of 2022  D. Kumar Servai S/o Late Shri S. Devdas Aged About 66 Years Resident Of Near Church Of God, Dr. Singhal's Street, Dak Bungalow Ward, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Under Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Project, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Superintending Engineer M.R.P. Dam Circle, Rudri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6. The Executive Engineer M.R.P. Dam Division No.2, Rudri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 7. The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.03 .2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for adding of his past services before his SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.20 17:47:12 +0530 2 regularization on the post of Lab Attendant in the Water Resources Department of the State Government. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee and thereafter he has been regularized on the post of Lab Attendant 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. She 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 Writ Appeal was also preferred by the State before the Division Bench of this Court and same has been dismissed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that against the order passed by the Single Bench as well as Division Bench, the State has filed SLP (Civil) No. 8677-8678/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the order passed by the Single Bench and 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 view that there is no justifiable reason to keep this writ petition pending. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction 3 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. 8677-8678/2023. 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. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), direction(s), and liberty granted to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant