1 2026:CGHC:16817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3214 of 2026 1 - Anil Kumar Pathak S/o Tulsiram Pathak Aged About 69 Years R/o Anand Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Krishna Patnayak W/o J M Patnayak Aged About 69 Years R/o Sainagar, Maharshi Valmiki Ward No. 28, Jora, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Savita Masand W/o Jalkumar Masand Aged About 68 Years R/o Avinash Capital Home Phase-2 Block, Plot No. 506, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Nandkishore Tiwari Aged About 72 Years R/o Krishna Sakha Society, Rohinipuram, Dagania, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Bhagwat Prasad Choudhari S/o Arjun Lal Choudhari Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Chhataud, Post - Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Gayatri Thakur W/o Late Indra Singh Thakur Aged About 66 Years R/o Hanuman Gudi, Awadhiya Para, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Sumati Soni D/o Late Gendlal Soni Aged About 68 Years R/o Near Shankar Mandir, Shukrawari Bazar, Gudhiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Santoshi Jaggi W/o Late Arshkumar Jaggi Aged About 69 Years R/o Block No. C-2 Plat No. 203, Golden Tower, Near Water Tank, Ward No. 46, Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 9 - Harakh Ram Sahu S/o Late Bhukhelal Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Bhendri, Post Office Loharsi, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 10 - D. Kumar Sarevai S/o Late S Devdas Aged About 67 Years R/o Dr. Singhal Gali Dak Bungalow, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Under Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department (Pension Redressal Samiti), Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directorate Of Pension And Provident Fund, First Block A, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block Sector -19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - The Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar Water Resources Department, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - The Executive Engineer Mahanadi Reservoir Project, Bridge Division No. 2, Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 8 - The Superintending Engineer (E And M) Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - The Executive Engineer Water Management Division No. 1, Water Resources Department, Akashwani, Behind Kali Mandir, Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - The Executive Engineer Mahanadi Reservoir Project Division No. 3, Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 11 - The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 12 - The Executive Engineer M L M Nalkup And Gate Division, Water Resources Department, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 13 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh 14 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Durg Division, Durg Chhattisgarh 15 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Dhamtari Division, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, directing the respondent including the service period spent by the petitioner as temporary employee, for pensionable service and accordingly revised the pension of petitioners. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the 4 petition may be given. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employee. Thereafter, they were regularized in service and upon attaining the age of superannuation, they retired on different dates. The respondent authorities while calculating retiral dues of the petitioner has not taken into consideration the service which they rendered as daily wage employee and has calculated less amount of the retiral dues for which the petitioners are entitled for. Petitioners have submitted a representation before the respondent no. 3 and therefore a direction be issued to the respondent no. 3 to consider and take decision on their representation. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Finance Department of the State of C.G. vide letter dated 28.05.2025 has issued directions mentioning that the daily wage employee is to be considered for computing the amount of the retiral dues. 3. Learned State counsel raised an objection on the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners and submit that service of the petitioners for the purpose of computing retiral dues is to be considered from the date of regularization. He further submits that in view of the limited prayer of the counsel for the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent no. 3 to take decision on the pending representation he is having no objection. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5 5. The representation submitted by the petitioner raising grievances as raised in this petition is pending consideration as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made prayer that a direction be issued to the respondent no. 3. 6. On due consideration and considering the submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 1 to 4 and in the event such representation is submitted, the concerned authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of representation. 7. Order accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Madhurima