Prabhat Kumar Dehari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1053 of 2022

¶5

1 - Prabhat Kumar Dehari S/o Nathaniyal Lal Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Bardevari Bhattipara, Tahsil And District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2 - Ram Prasad Gond S/o Shrawan Kumar Gond Aged About 64 Years Dhurwa Tola, Tahsil Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering, Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Engineer In Chief Public Health Department Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Superintending Engineer Public Health Department, Durg, Circle Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Executive Engineer Public Health Department Sub Division Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Joint Director Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G. A.

¶16

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

10/02/2026

¶19

This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

10.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire Records from the

¶21

office of the respondents in respect of Petitioners claim.

¶22

10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider

¶23

service rendered as contingency paid employee (daily wager) as pensionable service

¶24

Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.02.11 10:54:47 +0530

¶25

PARUL MITTAL

¶26

2

¶27

and count the pension from date of initial appointment and pay balance amount with suitable interest.

¶28

10.3 That, any other Writ, order directions or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wage employees and were subsequently regularized on 29.03.1982 & 20.08.2008 respectively. After the retirement of the petitioners, their retiral dues including pension and leave encashment were paid to them by calculating their service only from the date of their regularization. He further submits that while the gratuity was paid by also counting the period served by them as a daily wager, no such claim was granted to the petitioners regarding their pension and leave encashment. Consequently, this writ petition was filed seeking the aforementioned relief.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the core issue involved in this writ petition whether the services rendered by the employees as daily wagers are required to be counted for the purpose of granting pension and other monetary benefits is currently under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.8677-8678/ 2023. He further submits that identical petitions have previously been filed before this Court, which were disposed of with the observation that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above stated SLP would decide the fate of those petitioners. Accordingly, the rights of the present petitioners will depend upon the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in said SLP. He placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 10696/2019 dated 14.10.2024 and prays that this writ petition may also be disposed of in light of order passed by this Court.

¶31

This Court in WPS No. 10696/2019 in Para 6 observed as under.-

¶32

"6. Accordingly, the bunch of these writ petitions (s) deserve 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 petitioners and their entitlement to get

¶33

3

¶34

additional pension will be governed by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8677-8678/2023. It is also directed that if SLP (C) No. 86778678 of 2023 is decided in favour of the petitioners, the respondents shall extend the benefit to the petitioners without any further delay. It is also directed that if the grievance of the petitioners still exists, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition raising their grievances .

¶35

Thus, this writ petition is also stand disposed of in terms of order passed in WPS No.

¶36

10696/2019.

¶37

Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE

¶40

Parul

Prabhat Kumar Dehari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Kumar Dehari 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Kesharwani Vs Ramchandra Kesharwani

Monika Sharma Vs Umashankar Sharma

Laxmina Devi Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Uddhav Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwari Lal Soni Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Krishn Chaudhari Vs Balkrishn