1 CGHC010269322026 2026:CGHC:31038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5499 of 2026 Shri Ambika Prasad Gupta S/o Late Shri Ram Gulam Gupta Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Dumarpam Tahasil Ramchandrapur Distt- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Skill Development Employment And Technical Education Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Superintending Engineer Water Resources Department Ramchandrapur Distt- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Division No2 Ramanujganj Distt- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - The Accountant General (Accounts And Entitlement ) Zero Point Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.21 16:53:36 +0530 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.21 17:24:13 +0530 2 6 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Surguja Division Ambikapur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 5: Shri R.K. Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant benefit of gratuity and fixation of full pension to the Petitioner in accordance with law with all consequential benefit within stipulated time. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation for grant of gratuity and other retiral dues etc. of Petitioner in accordance with law. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, 3 relief/reliefs in favour of the Petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the Petitioner.” 2. Case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition is that he was initially appointed as Daily Wage Employee in the year 1987 and subsequently his service was regularized on the post of LDC, he continued to work as work charged employee on the sanctioned post of LDC till his retirement on 31.08.2020. Although the authorities have decided to grant pension gratuity to him, but his service period as Daily Wage Employee from 1987 has been excluded from qualifying years of service. Therefore, the petitioner is getting lesser amount of pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since petitioner was initially appointed as daily wagers against the post of Lower Division clerk and specific work was being taken from him and also paid salary from contingency head, therefore, service rendered by him as daily wage employees is countable for granting pension to him. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner was 4 working as daily wage employees and he was being paid salary from contigency fund. In this regard, he referred the order dated 20-12-1982 issued by the Irrigation Department, State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been specifically mentioned in Clause 1 that, the daily wage employees and work charged employees, who have been appointed as daily wager, shall be paid daily wages as per the rate declared by the Commissioner of that area. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and ors [(2020) 8 SCC 106] and State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastav and others [AIR 2013 SC 3383], and a decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Arun Bende Vs. The State of MP and ors. (dtd. 15-1-2025 in Writ Petition No. 13314/2019). 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that earlier, petitioner was appointed as daily wage employees and he was working on said post from his initial appoint till 2003. His employment was regularized vide order dated 04.06.2003. Thus, since, he worked as regular employees after 2003, therefore, he is entitled to get pension calculating qualifying service from 5 04.06.2003 only and for counting his pension, past services rendered by him as daily wage employee, cannot be countable. Hence, instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Rule 12(2) of the CG Civil Service Rules, 1976 deals with commencement of qualifying service, which reads thus : “12 Commencement of qualifying service: (1) xxx xxx xxx. (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity.” 7. From perusal of Rule 12(2) of the Rules, 1976, it is quite vivid that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in officiating or temporary capacity. 6 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2019) 10 SCC 516] considered the aspect of counting of service rendered by an employee prior to his regularization working under the Work Charged Establishment and being paid from the contingency fund and has held that the said period is to be counted for qualifying service for pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. Once regularisation had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed, it would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two 7 temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. An impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust. impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. Consequently, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the 8 instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years and some of them have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The services of the employees who had put in 10 years or more service is directed to be treated as regular. However, clarified that they shall not be entitled to claim any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order.” 9. In this case, petitioner was initially appointed as Office 9 Assistant on daily wage basis. On 04.06.2003 vide Annexure P-1, petitioners’ service was regularized/absorbed under Work Charged Establishment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. He continued to work as work charged employees on the sanctioned post of Lower Division Clerk till his retirement. Although pension has been granted to him but his service period as daily wage employees from 1987 has been excluded from qualifying years of service for the purpose of pension. 10. If we consider the facts of instant writ petition in the light of the Rule 12(2) of the Rules, 1976, and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Prem Singh (supra), in the opinion of this court, the petitioner herein will also be entitled for counting of past services rendered by him as a daily wage employees, as he was paid from contingency fund. 11. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of pension and other retiral dues calculating the previous services rendered by him as daily wage / work charged employees. The exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. 13. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib