Chattisgarh High Court
Neguram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 September, 2025
1
RAVI
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
2025:CGHC:44830
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
2025.09.08
12:02:56
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 993 of 2020
1 - Neguram Sahu S/o Bhaduram Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o
Kridutt Colony, Laxmi Nivas Chowk, Gokulpur, Tahsil And District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief Engineer, Department Of Water Resources, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Executive Engineer, Jal Prabandh Sambhag Code No. 38, Rudri,
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
4 - Joint Director, Kosh Lekha Avam Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Radheshyam Sahu S/o Parauram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Janwar Post Arodhi Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,
District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief Engineer Department Of Water Resources, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Executive Engineer Water Management Division Rudri, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
4 - Joint Director Kosh Lekha Avam Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Hooblal Sharma S/o Late Narsingh Prasad Sharma Aged About 64
Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Rudri, Post Rudri, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief Engineer Department Of Water Resources, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Executive Engineer Mahanadi Jalasay Pariyojna No. 1, Gangrel,
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
4 - Joint Direcotr Kosh Lekha Avam Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
03/09/2025
1. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is similar, they are
being heard and decided by this common order.
2. By filing instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners have prayed that the service rendered by
them as daily wage employees before they were regularized in
the department under the respondents, should also be counted
as qualifying service in respect of entitlement of full pension and
other retiral dues on completion of service on their retirement.
[For the sake of convenience, WPS No. 993/2020 would be
taken-up as lead case]
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
after superannuation of the petitioner on 30.09.2018, amount of
gratuity has been paid to him counting past service rendered by
him as daily wage employee, i.e. from 26.05.1976. He further
submits that since amount of gratuity has already been paid to
the petitioner counting his past service rendered by him as daily
wages employee, as such, that period also be counted for the
purpose of grant of pension to him.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that during the
period, i.e. from 26.05.1976 to 27.07.1995, the petitioner was not
regularized in service, therefore, he is not entitled to get the
benefit of counting aforesaid period for pension purpose.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. The issue involved in the instant petitions stands squarely
covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Lakhanram Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Ors. , WA No.281/2013 and other analogous appeals, decided on
26.02.2015, which has further been reiterated by learned Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.139/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh &
Ors. vs. Dayanand Mudaliar).
7. Common Order dated 17.5.2018 passed by learned Single Judge
of this Court in WPS No.3719/2018 & WPS No.3728/2018, was
upheld by the learned Division Bench in WA No.139/2022. It has
been observed in para 3 of order dated 17.5.2018 that Finance
Department has also issued Circular on 28.02.2018 for counting
past services of daily wage employees for pensionable service.
Para 3 of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-
"3. In addition, it is also relevant to take note of
the fact that the Finance department of the State
of Chhattisgarh vide a circular No.8/2018, dated
28.02.2018 have held that the period of the Daily
wage employees, who have been regularized
subsequent to 01.11.2004, their past services as
daily wage employee would also be treated as
pensionable service."
8. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and the
judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in afore cited
cases, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet
if these writ petitions itself are disposed of with a direction to
respondents No.1 to 4 to take all necessary steps to ensure that
the services rendered by the petitioners as daily wage employees
and if the petitioners have been as a daily wage employees itself
regularized in the department, then their period rendered as daily
wage employees may also be treated as pensionable service.
9. With aforesaid observation and direction, all the writ petitions
stand allowed and disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
