1 / 3 2026:CGHC:16295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3117 of 2026 Malik Ram Dewangan S/o Shri Panna Lal Dewangan Aged About 60 Years Assistant Grade Ii, Divisional Forest Office, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Conservator Of Forest Surguja Forest Circle, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Forest Officer Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Account, Treasury And Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, P.L. HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 09.04.2026 1. Petitioner has 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 2 / 3 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 would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employees and thereafter his services have been regularized with respondent department, therefore, as per Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules 1976 past services of the petitioner 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 Single Bench as well as Division Bench, 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 Division Bench of this Court. He read over operative part of the order. Thus, he would prays for keeping the proceeding in abeyance. Operative portion of the interim order of Supreme Court is reproduced herein 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 the the writ petition 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. 3 / 3 5. Accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be disposed of with a direction that the judgment to be 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 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 petitioner, the respondents shall extend the benefit to the petitioner herein without any further delay. It is also directed that if the grievance of the petitioner still exists thereafter, the petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for redressal of grievance. 7. With the aforesaid observation, direction and liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE