Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ramdeen Sarva on 18 June, 2025
1
Digitally
RAVI signed by
SHANKAR RAVI
MANDAVI SHANKAR
MANDAVI
2025:CGHC:25147
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 119 of 2025
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Excise, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Secretary Department Of Finance And Planning, Mantralaya At
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Commissioner (Excise), Office Of Commissioner (Excise), Gst
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
4 - District Excise Officer, Balod (Previously Durg), District - Balod
(C.G.)
5 - The Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Ramdeen Sarva S/o Late Shri Ramnath Sarva Aged About 62 Years
Retired Constable (Excise), R/o Jawartala, Post Mohara Tahsil Guroor
District- Balod, (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
18/06/2025
1. The present review petition has been filed by the review
petitioners/State of Chhattisgarh and 04 others seeking review of
the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (S) No.142 of 2024 (Ramdeen Sarva vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others), as the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order
dated 20.09.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 590/2024, dismissed the
appeal filed by the appellants/State and while dismissing the
appeal, liberty has been granted to the appellants/State to file a
review petition before the learned Single Judge raising all the
grounds as raised in Writ Appeal No.590/2024. Hence, this
petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that vide
impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.142 of 2024 (Ramdeen Sarva vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others), learned Single Judge has
directed to count service of the petitioner from the year 1999, i.e.
immediately after completion of his five years service from the
initial date of appointment relying upon the Circular dated
02.03.2005 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh as well as
judgment rendered by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2003) 4 MPLJ 376. He
further submits that aforesaid circular was issued only to count 10
years service for those contingency paid employees who were
subsequently regularized, but they could not complete 10 years of
service as a regular employee to get pension under Chhattisgarh
(Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension
Rules, 1979. He further submits that the aforesaid circular has
wrongly been interpreted by the learned Single Judge and without
providing opportunity to the State/petitioner herein to file reply,
impugned order dated 11.01.2024 has been passed. Writ Appeal
No. 590/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Ramdeen
Sarva) preferred by the State against impugned order has been
disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench granting liberty to the
petitioner to file review petition against the impugned order,
therefore, this review petition has been filed. Learned State
counsel further submits that since circular dated 02.03.2005 has
been wrongly interpreted in the impugned order and the same has
been passed without providing opportunity to the State/petitioner
herein to file reply, therefore, the impugned order dated
11.01.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.142/2024 may be
recalled and it be decided after providing proper opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner/State of Chhattisgarh by filing reply.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed reply to the review
petition, relying to reply, the learned counsel for the respondent
would submits that the circular dated 02.03.2005 issued by the
Government of Chhattisgarh, itself has directed to count service of
the contingency paid employee rendered by him as contingency
service for granting pension. A similar issue has also been dealt
by learned Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal
No.88/2019 (Mubin Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.)
whereby, the order passed by learned Single Judge in WPS
No.8277/2018 was upheld, hence, he prayed that review petition
may be rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
material available on record.
5. Undisputedly, impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed in Writ
Petition (S) No.142/2024 (Ramdeen Sarva vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others) was passed without providing opportunity
to file reply to the State/respondent therein. That order was
challenged in WA No.590/2024 which has been disposed of by
the Hon'ble Division Bench granting liberty to file review petition
against the impugned order. Since, the impugned order was
passed without providing opportunity to the State/respondent
therein to file reply of writ petition and liberty has been granted by
Hon'ble Division Bench, therefore, having considered the
contention of learned counsel for the State/petitioner herein, this
review petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned order dated
11.01.2024 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ Petition (S)
No.142/2024 (Ramdeen Sarva vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others) is recalled.
6. Registry is directed to restore Writ Petition (S) No.142/2024, in its
original number and list the case as per the roster.
7. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
