Krishna Prasad Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 110 of 2023

¶5

1 - Krishna Prasad Vishwakarma S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Aged About 67 Years (Retired) O/o Sub Divisional Officer, E/m Light Machinery Tubewell And Gate Sub Division Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Silfili, Police StationJainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - The Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - The Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Kachar, Water Resource Department, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - The Executive Engineer Water Resource Division No. 1 Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer E And M Light Machinery Tubewell And Gate, Sub Divisional Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶16

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

21/07/2025

¶19

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶20

The Petitioner has filing this writ petition to assail the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.4, whereby respondent No.4, in gross disregard and non-compliance of the binding directions issued by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2019, has arbitrarily determined the pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits of the petitioner. The

¶21

2

¶22

impugned order has been passed without taking into account the period of service rendered by the petitioner as a daily wager prior to his regularization, despite clear judicial pronouncements mandating such inclusion. Action of respondent No.4 in excluding the daily wage service period from the computation of retiral dues is violation of the specific directions contained in the aforementioned order of this Court dated 26.08.2019. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking following reliefs :-

¶23

“10.i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing / set aside the order dated 21.10.22 and direct the respondent authorities to grant gratuity and refixation of pension to the petitioner on the basis of order dated 23.05.18 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1254/2018 Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh along with interest.

¶24

10.ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

¶25

Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Carpenter in the year 1980, and has served in the concerned Government Department with diligence and sincerity since then. Despite his long-standing service, his employment remained in a temporary or daily wage capacity for several years. It was only after a prolonged period, specifically in the year 1995, that his services were formally regularized on the same post. The regularization of the service of petitioner was confirmed through a promotion order dated 13.11.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner received a formal posting order on 01.12.1995, assigning him duties in accordance with the regularized position. Throughout his tenure, the petitioner discharged his duties with utmost integrity, sincerity, and

¶26

3

¶27

dedication. There has never been any allegation or disciplinary action recorded against him. After rendering nearly 37 years of service, the petitioner retired from his duties upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. Following his retirement, his pension was fixed and made applicable from 01.05.2017. However, it was calculated based only on the period commencing from his regularization in 1995, entirely ignoring the significant span of service rendered between 1980 and 1995 in his daily wage capacity. The petitioner has submitted documents related to his pension calculation, including the calculation sheet. In support of his claim for counting the service from the date of initial appointment, the petitioner has referred to a precedent set in the case of Netram Sahu, an employee similarly situated. In that case, the appellate authority and the controlling authority extended the benefit of counting the entire length of service, including the period prior to regularization, for pensionary and gratuity purposes. The State of Chhattisgarh challenged this decision by filing W.P.(L) No.178/2013 before this Court, but the petition was dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court via order dated 16.12.2013. Aggrieved by this decision, the State filed a Writ Appeal No.240/2014 before the Division Bench of this Court. This appeal, however, met the same fate and was dismissed by the Division Bench through order dated 01.08.2014. Continuing the litigation, the matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.1254/2018, wherein the Apex Court allowed the appeal in favor of Netram Sahu through a judgment dated 23.05.2018, effectively upholding the benefit of considering the entire tenure, including pre-regularization service, for pensionary purposes. In compliance with the ruling of Hon’ble

¶28

4

¶29

Supreme Court, the Special Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued a circular on 24.05.2018, instructing all departments to extend the gratuity benefits to employees from their initial date of appointment till their date of regularization. Following this, the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Division, Atal Nagar, Raipur, issued another directive dated 29.10.2018, reiterating that daily wage employees are entitled to gratuity from the date of their initial appointment. In light of the above developments, the petitioner made multiple representations to the respondent authorities, seeking similar treatment as granted to Netram Sahu. He requested recalculation of his pension and gratuity benefits from his initial appointment in 1980 rather than from the date of regularization. These representations, however, went unanswered by the respondents. With no action taken by the authorities, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.6401/2019, which was disposed of by order dated 26.08.2019, with specific directions to respondents No. 2 to 5 to take appropriate steps. Despite the direction issued by this Court, the order was not complied with, compelling the petitioner to initiate Contempt Petition No.289/2020 before this Court. Following the issuance of notice in the contempt proceedings, the respondent authorities submitted a reply, stating that the order of the Court has been complied with by respondent No. 4 via its order dated 21.10.2022. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court through order dated 11.11.2022, with liberty reserved in favor of the petitioner to seek further appropriate remedy. In view of the foregoing sequence of events, the petitioner has been left with no effective remedy except to file the present writ petition,

¶30

5

¶31

seeking parity with the judgment in Netram Sahu’s case and enforcement of his fundamental rights to equal treatment under the law.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.4 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and in direct contravention of the well-settled principles of law applicable to the factual matrix of the present case. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from grave legal infirmities as it overlooks binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, thereby causing manifest injustice to the petitioner who has been deprived of rightful service benefits, including gratuity and pension fixation, to which he is legally entitled. The respondents, acting in disregard of constitutional and legal mandates, have failed to account for the period of service rendered by the petitioner on a daily wage basis prior to his regularization, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in excluding the service of petitioner rendered on daily wages from the computation of gratuity and pension benefits is not only arbitrary but also violative of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another , reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430 . In the said judgment, the Apex Court has categorically held that services rendered on daily wages prior to regularization cannot be excluded for the purpose of calculating terminal benefits such as pension and gratuity, especially in cases where the engagement has been continuous and uninterrupted. The Hon’ble Court therein recognized the principle that denial of such

¶33

6

¶34

service benefits on technical grounds offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and directed that such past service must be taken into account. The petitioner, having initially joined the service in the year 1980 as a daily wage worker and subsequently regularized in the year 1995, has rendered more than 15 years of prior service which remains uncounted solely due to the arbitrary and mechanical interpretation adopted by respondent No.4. It is submitted that the benefit of such service cannot be denied to the petitioner, particularly when the said service was rendered under the same employer, continuously and without break. The entitlement of petitioner to have the entire length of service from 1980 onwards reckoned for the purposes of pension and gratuity determination is unequivocally supported by the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu (supra). To deny the petitioner the same would amount to treating equals unequally and disregarding binding judicial pronouncements. Moreover, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the specific directions and clarifications issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh through letters dated 24.05.2018 (issued by the Special Secretary, Labour Department) and 29.10.2018 (issued by the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department), wherein the concerned authorities have clearly recognized the entitlement of similarly situated employees for pension and gratuity benefits inclusive of their daily wage service. The petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of the said administrative orders, and yet, the respondents have failed to extend the same benefits, thereby discriminating against the petitioner without any justifiable reason. It is also submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment in Netram Sahu (supra), and the principle of parity enshrined in Article 14

¶35

7

¶36

of the Constitution mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated alike. The petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Netram Sahu, and any deviation therefrom would constitute a hostile discrimination, arbitrary classification, and violation of the doctrine of equality. Finally, the persistent inaction and arbitrary approach of the respondent authorities in denying legitimate service benefits to the petitioner, in the face of clear judicial and administrative directives, are not only unlawful but also amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been discriminated against without any rational or intelligible differentia, and the denial of his rightful dues solely on account of technicalities is both unjust and unconstitutional. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 be set aside and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits including gratuity and pension by reckoning his entire length of service from the year 1980, in the interest of justice.

¶37

On the other hand, learned State counsel would contend that in response to the orders issued by both the Hon’ble Single Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench, the State has filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 86778678/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in turn, has granted a stay on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The operative portion of the Supreme Court’s order is as follows:

¶38

“Delay condoned. Issue notice to the respondents. In the meantime, there shall be an interim stay of the impugned order.”

¶39

Accordingly, he would pray for the proceedings to be kept in abeyance.

¶40

8

¶41

After considering the submissions and noting that the issue raised in this writ petition is substantially the same as the one currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that there is no valid reason to keep this writ petition pending further.

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of with the direction that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 8677-8678/2023 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. The petitioners’ entitlement to additional pension shall be governed by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said SLP. Furthermore, if the Supreme Court decides the matter in favor of the petitioners, the respondents are directed to grant the benefits without any undue delay. In case the petitioners’ grievance persists even after such relief, they shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition raising the relevant issues.

¶43

With these observations, directions, and liberty granted, this writ petition stand disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Shayna

Krishna Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eshai Ram Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Christian Womans Board of Mission Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khilu Ram Vs Ved Ram @ Vijay Sonwani

Toran Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rambharos Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Das Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited