1 2026:CGHC:23959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3147 of 2021  Sheshnarayan Vaishnav Son Of Late Shri Bhagwat Das Vaishnav Aged About 65 Years Retired Forest Guard, Resident Of Near Old Petrol Pump, Kasdol, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Under Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Forest And Water Air Diversion Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Atal Nagar, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Divisional Forest Officer Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5. The Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 16.6.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting aside/ quashing the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to including the service period spent by the petitioner as temporary employee, for pensionable service, as per circular dated 02.03.2005 of State Government and as per order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A. No. 88 of 2019 along with other batch of appeals, with interest @ 18% annum. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner was initially engaged by the respondent department as daily wage employee in the year 1989 and his services were regularized on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 29.8.2007. Subsequently, petitioner stood retired from services on 31.10.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner claimed pensionary benefits according to the Work-charged and Contingency Fund Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1979’] and his claim has been rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 8.2.2021 on the ground that initial appointment of petitioner was on daily wage basis and he was never appointed as contingency fund paid employee therefore the provisions of Act of 1979 would not attract. 3 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondent department on daily wage basis but his services were regularized treating him as contingency fund paid employee vide order dated 29.8.2007. He has referred the pension payment order (Annexure P/6) wherein it is mentioned that petitioner is entitled to receive pension as his services were regularized from daily wage employee to contingency fund paid employee. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Mubin Khan Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WA No. 88 of 2019. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was never appointed as contingency fund paid employee therefore the provisions of the Act of 1979 would not attract in the instant case. He contends that petitioner entered in service on 31.8.2007 and worked for a period of 9 months 2 months and 2 days and this information finds mention in the pension payment order. He argues that since petitioner has not completed the qualifying service therefore he is not entitled for pensionary benefit according to Act of 1979 and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6) In Mubin Khan (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench has 4 considered the circular issued by the State Government dated 2.3.2005. According to this circular, the period spent as temporary employee shall be counted for pensionable service. In para-7 of the judgment, it is categorically held that an employee appointed appointed in the contingency fund establishment acquires temporary status under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Fund Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977 after completion of five years and said period should be taken into account while computing the pensionable service. Relevant paragraph 7 reads as under :- 7. In view of the circular issued by the State Government and the law laid down by the Division Bench of the M. P. High Court in Shrikrishna Shrivastava (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's pensionable service should be counted from the date he completed 5 years service from the date of initial appointment, as immediately upon completion of 5 years service in the Contingency Paid Establishment, the petitioner had acquired temporary status under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1977. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents shall recalculate the petitioner's pensionable service in accordance with this order and pay him the entire consequential benefits within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. There shall be no order as to interest on the arrears. 7) In the case at hand, petitioner was initially engaged by the department on daily wage basis ; his services were regularized vide order dated 29.8.2007 and no document has placed on 5 record to demonstrate that petitioner was ever appointed as contingency fund paid employee therefore in my opinion the ratio laid down in Mubin Khan (supra) would not apply as the facts are distinguishable. 8) It is also pertinent to mention that petitioner was regularized in the year 2007 and he stood retired in the year 2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, he could not complete the qualifying service period required for pensionary purpose. 9) In view of the discussion made herein-above, I do not find and good ground to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed. 10) No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.06.17 16:56:44 +0530