[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Baisakhu Sahu on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13646-DB
NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.03.23
17:40:08
+0530
WA No. 470 of 2022
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Work Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Engineer In Chief Pubic Works Department, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department Nirmal Bhawan Sector 19
Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Executive Engineer, Public Work Department Division Bemetara,
District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Joint Director, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg
District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,
... Appellants
versus
1 - Baisakhu Sahu S/o Samay Lal Sahu, Aged About 64 Years R/o
Village Tendubhata Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Amrika Sahu S/o Ananda Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village
Kevtara Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Tiharu Ram Lodhi S/o Joidha Lodhi Aged About 68 Years R/o Village
Muglatola, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General
For Respondents : None present
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
23.03.2026
1. Heard Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants/State. None appears on behalf of the respondents to
press this writ appeal. However, preliminary submission/objection
has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. The appellants/State have filed this writ appeal against the order
dated 22/11/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.
6454 of 2021 by which learned Single Judge has disposed of the
writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the writ
petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees in the
Public Works Department at different points of time prior to
31/12/1988. Subsequently, they continued to discharge their duties
as permanent gangmen in accordance with the provisions of the
Public Works Department Manual. It is pertinent to mention that
their engagement at all relevant times remained under the
category of daily wage/permanent gangman and not under the
Work Charged or Contingency Paid Establishment. Pursuant to
the circular issued by the State Government dated 05/03/2008,
which provided for regularization of employees engaged prior to
31/12/1988, the services of the writ petitioners were considered for
regularization. In compliance thereof, the Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, Bemetra Division, issued an order
dated 26/08/2008 whereby the services of the writ petitioners were
regularized against regular posts. It is submitted that this was the
first occasion when the writ petitioners were brought into the
regular establishment. Thereafter, the writ petitioners continued to
serve in the regular establishment until they attained the age of
superannuation and retired on different dates. Upon retirement,
pensionary benefits were extended to the writ petitioners strictly in
accordance with the length of their regular service, i.e., from the
date of regularization on 26/08/2008.
4. The State has taken a specific stand that the writ petitioners were
never appointed under the Work Charged or Contingency Paid
Establishment and, therefore, the provisions of the Work Charged
and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 are not
applicable to their case. It is further submitted that there exists a
clear distinction between employees appointed under the Work
Charged/Contingency Paid Establishment and those engaged as
daily wagers or permanent gangmen under the departmental
manual. However, reference is also made to the subsequent
circular dated 26/05/2018, which provides that in cases where an
employee retires before completing the minimum qualifying service
of 10 years, the period of service rendered as a daily wager may
be taken into account for the limited purpose of completing the
qualifying service for pension.
5. The issue relating to the status and entitlement of such employees
has been the subject matter of various litigations before this Court.
In certain cases, it has been held that permanent gangmen may
fall within the ambit of contingency paid employees. The State has
challenged such findings by way of writ appeals before the
Division Bench. In one such matter, the decision of the Division
Bench was further assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
filing a Special Leave Petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide
order dated 25/02/2022, permitted withdrawal of the said petition
with liberty to approach the High Court by filing a review petition. In
light of the liberty so granted, the review petition has been
preferred by the State seeking reconsideration of the earlier
judgment. The primary contention raised is that the writ petitioners
were never part of the Work Charged or Contingency Paid
Establishment and were regularized only in the year 2008; hence,
they are not entitled to the benefits under the Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979.
6. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has disposed of the
writ petition filed by the writ petitioners by observing that the
judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.88 of
2019 shall also be applicable in this case to the extent that the
service rendered by the petitioners as daily wage employee prior
to regularization shall also be counted for the purpose of grant of
retiral dues including pensionary benefit. The implementation of
the same shall be after due verification of the service record of the
petitioner. Hence, this writ appeal.
7. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the
appellants/State submits that The respondents/writ petitioners
were initially appointed as daily wager employees due to the
availability of work from time to time. Subsequently, vide order
dated 01/09/2008, their services were regularized under a regular
pay scale. It is respectfully submitted that the services rendered by
the writ petitioners prior to regularization, while working as daily
wagers, cannot be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of
calculating pension and other retirement benefits. This is because
daily wage employees are treated differently from temporary and
permanent employees under the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh
(Work-Charge and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules,
1979. Rule 3 of these Rules limits the applicability of the pension
benefits to permanent members only. To attain the status of a
permanent employee under the Rules, an individual must be either
a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who
has completed five years of service or fifteen years of service or
more on or after 1st January 1974. The definitions of "Contingency
Paid Employee" and "Work-Charged Employee" explicitly exclude
those employed for only part of the year, as well as daily wage and
muster-roll employees. He further submits that under the Rules, a
contingency paid employee is defined as a person employed full-
time in an office or establishment, paid monthly from office
contingencies, excluding those employed only part of the year. A
work-charged employee is defined as a person engaged in the
actual execution or supervision of specified works or departmental
labour, excluding daily wage and muster-roll employees. A
permanent employee, under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, is one who is
a contingency paid or work-charged employee with fifteen years of
service or more on or after 1st January 1974, with an amendment
issued on 13/09/1982 reducing the threshold to ten years. Rule 6
of the Pension Rules, which deals with the commencement of
qualifying service, applies only to employees falling within the
scope of Rules 3, 4, and 5. The procedures for pension
preparation, sanction, and payment follow the Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and the Madhya Pradesh
New Pension Rules, 1951, applied mutatis mutandis. Judicial
precedents have also emphasized that service as a daily wage
employee does not automatically confer pension rights. In
Pramodani Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
(04/07/2012), this Court held that engagement on daily wages
cannot be counted as service in the department, and such
appointments, being outside the legal framework, do not create
rights for continuation or pension. However, in Ram Avtar Verma
& Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (26/02/2015), it
was held that service rendered in temporary positions may be
counted as pensionable service if the employee is subsequently
regularized. Following this principle, the State Government issued
a circular on 26/05/2018, providing that services rendered by
employees as daily wagers, when later regularized under work-
charged establishment, may be added to their qualifying service
for the purpose of pension. He also submits that the issue of
pension eligibility for contingency paid employees is still under
judicial consideration. In Writ Appeal No. 102/2020, State of
Chhattisgarh v. Narendra Kumar Upadhyay and Others, the
Division Bench stayed the effect of learned Single Bench order on
the matter. Consequently, while the general rule excludes daily
wages service from qualifying service for pension, government
policy decisions and certain judicial rulings recognize the inclusion
of such service if the employee is later regularized, ensuring
pension benefits upon retirement. As such, the writ appeal
deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by
learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
8. None appears on behalf of the respondents to contest this writ
appeal. However, respondent No.1 has filed his preliminary
objection stating that that the respondents/writ petitioners were
working as contingency paid labour prior to their regularization
under the appellants State. The writ petitioners worked full-time on
a monthly basis, and their pay was allocated to the "work
contingency" fund. The writ petitioners were classified as a
"permanent gang" and were granted the benefits of increments
and revised pay scales. Their services were regularized under
regular posts as work-charged contingency paid employees, and
the writ petitioners have since retired after attaining the age of
superannuation. It has been further stated that the writ petitioners
retired from Bemetara Division of the Public Works Department.
Other retired employees in this Division had filed Writ Petition
bearing WPS No.5142/2020 before this Court, which was allowed
vide order dated 18.01.2021. The appellants then filed Writ Appeal
bearing WA No. 163/2021 before the Division Bench of this Court,
which was dismissed on 24.06.2021. Against the order dated
24.06.2021 in WA No. 163/2021, the State filed Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 20477/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.02.2022 with liberty to
approach the High Court. Subsequently, the State filed review
petition bearing REVP No. 133/2022 before this Court, which was
also dismissed on 12.08.2022 by this Court. It has also been
stated that the grounds mentioned in the present appeal have
already been considered by this Court in earlier petitions, including
the order dated 26.02.2015 in WA No. 281/2013. The State had
assailed the order dated 26.02.2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2017. The writ
petitioners were working as work-charged contingency paid
employees prior to regularization and were classified as a
permanent gang. Therefore, the writ petitioners are entitled to be
granted pension from the date of their initial appointment, as
ordered by this Hon'ble Court in WPS 6454/2021.
9. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing
for the appellants/State. Perused the writ appeal, the impugned
order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, and
the preliminary objection filed by respondent No.1.
10.By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had disposed of
the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners by observing that the
judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 88 of
2019 shall also be applicable in this case, to the extent that the
service rendered by the writ petitioners as daily wage employees
prior to regularization shall be counted for the purpose of grant of
retiral dues, including pensionary benefits. The implementation of
the same was directed to be carried out after due verification of the
service records of the writ petitioners.
11.Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the writ
petitioners were initially appointed as daily wager employees, and
that service prior to regularization cannot be counted as qualifying
service under the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh (Work-Charge
and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. It was
further argued that only permanent contingency paid or work-
charged employees who have completed the required years of
service are entitled to pension benefits, and that judicial
precedents generally exclude daily wages service from
pensionable service unless subsequently regularized.
12.On the other hand, respondent No.1 has stated that the writ
petitioners were working full-time as work-charged contingency
paid employees prior to regularization, classified as a permanent
gang, and were granted increments and revised pay scales. It was
further stated that the writ petitioners retired from the Bemetara
Division of the Public Works Department and that similar petitions
filed by other employees in the Division have been allowed by this
Court. Government circulars and previous judgments, including
WA No. 281/2013 and WPS 6454/2021, have recognized the
inclusion of daily wages service in qualifying service when
employees are regularized.
13.Upon consideration of the material on record, the submissions of
the learned counsel, and the judicial precedents cited, it is clear
that the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the principle laid
down in Writ Appeal No. 88 of 2019. The service rendered by the
writ petitioners as daily wage employees, which has been
subsequently regularized, is to be counted for pensionary and
other retiral benefits, subject to verification of service records. The
contentions raised by the State in the present writ appeal have
already been addressed in earlier judgments and policy decisions.
No compelling reason has been shown to interfere with the
impugned order.
14.In view of above, we do not find illegality or illegality in the
impugned order passed by learned Single Judge warranting
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal being
devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
