Gajanand Alias Gajanan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48658

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3577 of 2023

¶7

1 - Gajanand Alias Gajanan Patel S/o Late Monu Dau Patel Aged About 70 Years Retired Sthal Sahayak, Posted At Sub Division Office Rastriya Rajmarg Sub Division Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh R/o Village And Post Mura, P.S. Bhupdeopur Tahsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raiur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Rastriya Rajmarg Division Bilaspur Near Collector Office Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Excutive Engineer Public Work Department Rastriya Rajmarg Division Bilaspur Near Collector Office Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Work Department Rastriya Rajmarg Sub Division Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

2

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

22/09/2025

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to direct the respondent department to re-calculate the entire service period as pensionable service as per pension rule 1979. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the pension after recalculating the initial period and also pay the arrears without delay to the petitioner.

¶22

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the gratuity by calculating the entire service period from 1980 for purpose of gratuity and thereby grant the arrears of gratuity.

¶23

10.4 This Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner's matter.

¶24

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

3

¶26

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 Coordinate 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

4

¶30

Thus, he would pray for keeping the proceeding in abeyance

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition stands

¶34

disposed of with the liberty as granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Raghu Jat

Gajanand Alias Gajanan Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanand Alias Gajanan Patel 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

Chirag Sharma Vs Mahendra Singh

Suhag Bati Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Ameen Khan Vs Dashrath Korram

Ganesh Ram Vs Mahboob Khan

Shailesh Mounas Vs State of Chhattisgarh