1 2026:CGHC:15958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3063 of 2026 1 - Jhanku Ram Yadav S/o Charku Ram Yadav Aged About 59 Years Forester, Lavakera Circle, Tapkara Range, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Teju Ram S/o Munu Ram Aged About 61 Years Forester, Tapkara Range, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Surendra Nath Singh S/o Late Lekhan Singh Aged About 59 Years Wireless Operator, Tapkara Range, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.17 19:20:26 +0530 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court pleased to direct the respondent authorities to recalculate the petitioners pensionable services from the date of 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 petitioner 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 writ petitions in favour of petitioners therein and thereafter Writ Appeals preferred by the State before Division Bench of this Court came to be dismissed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that against the orders passed by the Division Bench, the State has filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 8677-8678/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He read over operative part of the order. Thus, he would pray for keeping the proceeding in abeyance. Operative portion of interim order of Supreme Court is reproduced here in below for ready reference : “Delay condoned. Issue notice to the respondents. In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the impugned order”. 4. Considering the submissions and the fact that, the issue raised in this 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 to be pass 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 petitioner and his 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 petitioner herein without any further delay. It is also directed that if the grievance of the petitioners still 4 exists, thereafter, petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for redressal of grievance(s). 7. With the aforesaid observation, direction and liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi