1 2026:CGHC:25809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4902 of 2022 1. Janakram Sen S/o Ramji Sen Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Village And Post Tarrighat, Police Station And Tahsil Rajim , District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2. Bisahuram Gond S/o Bhikhari Gond Aged About 69 Years Resident Of Village Junwani , Post Pakiya, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3. Vedram Sahu S/o Punit Ram Sahu Aged About 63 Years Resident Of Village And Post Beltukri, Police Station And Tahsil Rajim , District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Deputy Director Weather Science Division No. 4, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Executive Engineer Water Resource Department , Division Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer Water Resource Sub Division , Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 5. Joint Director Treasury, Accounts, And Pension Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Pranoti Das, 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 24.06 .2026 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.24 18:19:14 +0530 2 1. The petitioners have filed this petition to reckon their past services before regularization for pension purpose. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wage employee and thereafter they have been regularized with respondent department, therefore, past services of the petitioners 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 this writ petition in favour of the petitioners 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 petitioners and their 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. 8677-8678 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. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), direction(s), and liberty granted to the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant