Dismissed¶33

Kedarnath Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2026WPL/127/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPL No. 127 of 2016; decided 13.07.2026 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey. Petition dismissed upholding Labour Court, Korba award dated 30.10.2015. Held: daily-wage employee retired on 31.10.2002 at age 55 cannot retrospectively claim benefit of Circular dated 16.08.2004 extending superannuation age to 60 years; no discrimination shown vis-a-vis similarly situated employees; claim barred by unexplained 11-year delay. Keywords: superannuation, daily-wage employee, circular, retrospective benefit, delay, labour court award.

What did the court decide?

A daily-wage employee who superannuated on 31.10.2002 under the then-prevailing Service Rules cannot claim the benefit of the Circular dated 16.08.2004 (extending superannuation from 55 to 60 years) with retrospective effect. ¶31

Kedarnath Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

CGHC010142822016

2026:CGHC:29279

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPL No. 127 of 2016

¶7

1 - Kedarnath Soni S/o. Shri Govindram Soni Aged About 67 Years R/o Irrigation Colony, Darri Tehsil, Katghora, District Korba, Civil And Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralay, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Chief Engineer Department Of Water Resources, Minimata, Hasdeo Bango Project, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Barage Water Management, Darri District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For petitioner : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

13.07.2026

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :

¶21

“10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

-2-

¶23

10.2 To issue an appropriate writ/order directing to quash the order dated 31.10.2002, (Annex.p/2) and order dtd. 30/10/2015 (Annex. P/6).

¶24

10.3 To issue an appropriate writ and order directing Res. No.4 to grant the consequential benefit with interest for the period on which the petitioner was wrongly retrenched.

¶25

10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-wage employee under the respondent authorities against a vacant post on 01.06.1983. He would contend that the petitioner retired from services after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 55 years on 31.10.2002 and thereafter, a Circular was issued by the State Government dated 16.08.2004 extending age of superannuation from 55 years to 60 years. He would further contend that before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner claimed reinstatement and extension of his service for a period of five years pursuant to the Circular dated 16.08.2004. He would submit that the learned Labour Court, vide award dated 30.10.2015, dismissed the statement of claim. Mr. Pandey would further submit that similarly situated daily-wage employees were extended benefit of the Circular dated 16.08.2004, whereas the petitioner was singled out. He would contend that the action on the part of the respondent authorities was arbitrary is discriminatory. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 30.10.2015.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr. Saini, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose the

¶28

¶29

submissions. He would submit that the petitioner got retired according to the prevailing Service Rules on attaining age of 55 years on 31.10.2002. Mr. Saini would submit that the Circular extending age of superannuation was issued on 16.08.2004 and the petitioner cannot claim retrospective benefit of that Circular. He would argue that the petitioner approached learned Labour Court after delay of 11 years and therefore, statement of claim preferred by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by learned Labour Court.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

It appears that the petitioner, who was a daily-wage employee retired from service on 31.10.2002 on attaining age of 55 years, which was the age of superannuation under the prevailing Service Rules. A Circular was issued by the State Government, whereby the age of superannuation of daily-wage employees was extended from age of 55 years to 60 years. The petitioner approached the learned Labour Court after 11 years from date of retirement claiming therein benefit of Circular dated 16.08.2004. It is contended by Mr. Pandey that similarly situated daily-wage employees were extended benefit of Circular dated 16.08.2004 but it has not been demonstrated that said benefit was extended in their favour after retirement; therefore, said contention cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioner claimed the benefit of Circular dated 16.08.2004, whereas, he was superannuated on 31.10.2002 and certainly the petitioner cannot claim such benefit with retrospective effect.

¶32

-4-

¶33

The petitioner approached the learned Labour Court after delay of 11 years and such a huge delay was not properly explained and therefore, the learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim preferred by the petitioner. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

sd/-

¶35

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

Rekha

Kedarnath Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedarnath Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Pandey Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

M/s Ganpati Motors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Khorbahra Ram Urvasha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh