1 CGHC010017632020 2026:CGHC:39467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 346 of 2020 Kushal Sinha S/o Shri Tangooram Sinha, Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 17, Near Sahu Dharmsala, P.S. Rajnandgaon City Kotwali Block Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Treasury, Accounts And Audit Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- “10.i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner's case, in the interest of justice. 2 (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command and direct the respondent authorities to grant the pension to the Petitioner and the family pension to her family member along with 9% annual interest till death of payment. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner’s mother was appointed as a permanent Gangman in the respondent department in the year 1977. She retired from service after attaining the age of 62 years on 31.08.2009 and subsequently died on 06.11.2011. The petitioner has claimed pension and family pension under the Chhattisgarh (Work charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra, in the matter of Lakhanram Sahu anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors. (WA No.281 of 2013), the Division Bench has directed the State Government to take into account the period spent in ‘temporary’ service to reckon pensionable service which clearly bring them within the qualifying period. He would submit that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Lakhan Ram Sahu (supra). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that, according to the Work Charged and Contingency Employees Services Condition Rule, 1976, the petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee, is not entitled to pensionary benefits as he has already crossed age of 25 years; thus, the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 3 5. Having considered the facts discussed above, without making any observation on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to make a representation before respondent No. 3 within a period of 30 days from today and in turn, the respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the law laid down in the matter of Lakhanram Sahu (supra), within a further period of 90 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim