1 CGHC010323632026 2026:CGHC:37291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6245 of 2026 Ku. Madhulika Mishra D/o Late Shri I. L . Mishra Aged About 69 Years Occupation Retired From The Post Of Assistant Grade 3, Tandula, Water Resources Division Durg R/o House No. 39, Ward No. 30, Tamer Para Durg District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Water Resources Department, Mantrlaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raiur District Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Director Treasury Accounts And Audit, Department Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department Mahanadi Godavari Kachar, Raipur C.G. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.08.20 17:14:30 +0530 2 5 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Water Resources Department Tandula, Water Resources Division Durg District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 20.08.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record in relation to the entire service record of the petitioner from the respondent depatment. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ or suitable direction to the respondents to issue all other consequential bene!ts of the petitioner from her initial date of appointment i.e. 01.09.1980 of which the petitioner is entitled; 10.3 That, the respondent authority may be directed to calculate and pay pension and gratuity and arrears thereof to the petitioner, taking into consideration the period of service as daily wager or from initial date of appointment, from her date of retirement and interest upon at the rate of 12% per month till date of payment. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide her pending representation within a stipulated time frame in the interest of justice. 10.5 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem !t and appropriate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on 01.09.1980 under the Tandula Irrigation Division, Durg. Her services were subsequently regularized pursuant to the order dated 29.03.1990 issued by the O>ce of the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachar, Irrigation Department, Raipur (M.P.). Thereafter, the petitioner continued to render her services diligently and without any interruption at the places of her posting and ultimately superannuated from service on 31.10.2018 from Tandula Water Resources Division, Durg (C.G.). 3. It is further submitted that, after her superannuation, the respondents granted regular pension to the petitioner under the applicable pension scheme; however, the period of service rendered by her as a daily-wage employee from her initial date of appointment, i.e. 01.09.1980, has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of her 4 pensionary and retiral bene@ts. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation before the respondent authorities seeking consideration of her service rendered as a daily-wage employee from 01.09.1980 for the purpose of @xation of pension, gratuity and consequential arrears, along with interest, but the same has neither been considered nor decided till date. 4. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide her claim and to calculate and pay the pension, gratuity and other retiral bene@ts, along with consequential arrears, by taking into consideration the period of service rendered by her as a daily-wage employee from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 01.09.1980, in accordance with law. In this regard, he referred the order dated 20-12-1982 issued by the Irrigation Department, State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been speci@cally 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 5 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). 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that earlier, petitioner was appointed as daily wage employees and she was working on said post from his initial appoint till 1990. Her employment was regularized vide order dated 29.03.1990. Thus, since, she worked as regular employees after 1990 therefore, she is entitled to get pension calculating qualifying service from 29.03.1990 only and for counting her pension, past services rendered by her as daily wage employee, cannot be countable. Hence, instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Rule 12(2) of the CG Civil Service Rules, 1976 deals with commencement of qualifying service, which reads thus : 6 “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 @rst appointed either substantively or in an o>ciating or temporary capacity.” 8. 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 @rst appointed either substantively or in o>ciating or temporary capacity. 9. 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 :- 7 “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 e>ciency 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 temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. An impermissible classi@cation has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust. impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees bene@t 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 8 discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classi@cation. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classi@cation 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 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 9 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, clari@ed that they shall not be entitled to claim any dues of diJerence 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 con@ned to three years only before the date of the order.” 10. In this case, petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager. On 29.03.1990 vide Annexure P-2, petitioners’ service was regularized/absorbed on the post of Steno Typist. Although pension has been granted to her but her service period as daily wage employees from 1980 has been excluded from qualifying years of service for the purpose of pension. 11. 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 10 opinion of this court, the petitioner herein will also be entitled for counting of past services rendered by her as a daily wage employees, as she was paid from contingency fund. 12. 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 her as daily wage / work charged employees. The exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certi@ed copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. 14. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib