1 2026:CGHC:15450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3003 of 2026 1 - Birsu Ram S/o Mahu Ram Aged About 61 Years Peon, Singhibahar Forest Barrier Range, Tapkara, District- Jashpur, C.G. 2 - Ravinath Say S/o Ghanshyam Say Aged About 60 Years Peon, Forest Division Office, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Conservator Of Forest Surguja Forest Circle, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 3 - Divisional Forest Officer Jashpur, District- Jashpur, C.G. 4 - Joint Director Account, Treasury And Pension, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.J. Rao, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 06/04 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to recalculate the petitioner pensionable services from the date of 2 initial appointment and accordingly, pay the entire consequential benefits. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wage employees and thereafter their services have been regularized with respondent department. According to Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules 1976 past services of the petitioners should have been counted for the purpose of pension. They would further submit that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the issue raised in the bunch of these writ petitions in their favour and thereafter Writ Appeals were also preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and same have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, as such they will comply with the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that against the orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench as well as Hon’ble Division, the State has filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 8677-8678/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench and Hon’ble 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. 3 4. Considering the submissions and the fact that the issue raised in these writ petitions 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 these writ petition pending. 5. Accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be disposed of with a direction that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C) No. 8677-8678/2023 will be applicable mutatis mutandi in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners and their claim and entitlement to get additional pension will be governed by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP ( C) No. 8677- 8678/2023. 6. It is also directed that if SLP ( C ) No. 867-8678 of 2023 is decided favouring 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. 7. With the aforesaid observation, direction and liberty granted to the petitioners, these writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/-Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY