Disposed

Sahdev Lodhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jul 2025WPS/1409/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking counting of past services for pension after regularization. As the identical issue was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8677-8678/2023 with interim stay, the court disposed of the petition, directing that the Supreme Court's decision apply mutatis mutandis and benefits be extended if decided in petitioner's favour.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sahdev Lodhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.08.2611:02:36 +0530

2025:CGHC:35454

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1409 of 2023

¶7

Sahdev Lodhi S/o Late Shri Sonu Ram Lodhi Aged About 65 Years R/o Imlibhata, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Director Treasury, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Accountant General Chhattisgarh Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road, Post Office- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

(Cause-title take	... Respondents n from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate
For State/Respondents	: Ms. M. Asha, P.L.
For Respondent No.4	: Mr. RajKumar Gupta, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶16

23.07.2025

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Lav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Asha, P.L. for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶18

¶19

2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for adding of his past services before their reqularization on various posts in the Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, Forest Department, Water Resources Department and other Departments of the State Government.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee and thereafter, he has been regularized in the regular establishment of work and contingency employment 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. He would further submit that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the issue raised in this writ petition in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the writ appeals were also preferred by the State before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and same have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, as such, he shall comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.

¶21

4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that against the orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench as well as Hon'ble Division Bench, the State has filed SLP (Civil) Nos.86778678/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the orders passed by the Hon'ble

¶22

¶23

Single Bench and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The operative part of the order reads as under:-

¶24

"Delay condoned. Issue notice to the respondents. In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the impugned order".

¶25

Thus, he would pray for keeping the proceeding in abeyance.

¶26

5. Considering the submissions and the fact that the issue raised in this 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 this writ petition pending.

¶27

6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8677-8678/2023 will be applicable mutatis mutandis in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and his entitlement to get additional pension will be governed by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8677-8678/2073. It is also directed that if SLP (C) No. 86778678 of 2023 is decided in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall extend the benefit to the petitioner without any further delay. It is also directed that if the grievance of the petitioner still exists, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition raising his grievance.

¶28

¶29

7. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty as granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

Sd/Sd/-

¶32

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶33

Yogesh

Sahdev Lodhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sahdev Lodhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Azeem Qureshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gyandeo Bhoy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagatnarayan Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Fulmat Vs Manoj Singh

U.S. Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh