Dismissed¶34

Ramesh Prasad Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Pension – counting of pre-regularization daily-wage/ad-hoc service

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2026WPS/2904/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; WPS No. 2904 of 2023; decided 13/03/2026 by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad (single Judge). Keywords: pension; qualifying service; daily wage employee; ad-hoc appointment; regularization; counting of service period from initial appointment 18.02.1985; gratuity paid on entire service; Nagarpalika Nigam Korba; Samaypal; Finance Circular dated 26.5.18 (finance direction 30/2018, Annexure R/3) relied on by Respondent No.3; writ petition dismissed; impugned order dated 11.11.2022 upheld; no costs/quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

An employee temporarily appointed on ad-hoc/daily-wage basis and thereafter regularized cannot claim pensionary benefits from the initial date of appointment. ¶33

Ramesh Prasad Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:12105

NAFR

AVINASH SHARMA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.03.18 15:50:34 +0530

¶7

WPS No. 2904 of 2023

¶8

Rameshwar Prasad Rathore S/o. Late Shri Sukhruram Rathore Aged About 69 Years Occupation Retired Samaypal R/o. Ward No. 29, Kharmora Korba, Thana Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner.

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Nagriya Prashashan And Vikash Vibhag Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Director, Sanchnalaya Nagriya Prashashan Avm Vikash Vibhag Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Aayukt, Nagarpalika Nigam Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - Upsanchalak Penshan/prabhari Penshan Nidhi, Nagariya Prashasan And Vikash Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

		... Respondents.
For Petitioner	:	Shri Abhishek Dahariya appears on behalf of Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocates.
For State/Res.	:	Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, PL.
For Respondent No.3	:	Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

¶16

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

13/03/2026

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3, whereby representation of the petitioner for counting the period for calculation of his pension from his initial appointment as ad-hoc appointee i.e. 18.02.1985, has been rejected.

¶21

Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶22

10.1 That the impugned order (Annexure P/3) passed by Respondent No.3 be set aside/cancelled.

¶23

10.2 That the respondents be directed to calculate the service period of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and determine his pension.

¶24

10.03 That the respondents be directed to take immediate action to pay full pension, re-fix the pension and pay the entire arrears amount by counting the qualifying service rendered continuously by the petitioner as a daily wage employee from the date of his first appointment i.e. 18.02.85 to the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2017 for a total period of 32 years 04 months and 12 days.

¶25

10.04 That such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit be granted to the petitioner by the respondents.

¶26

¶27

Necessary facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Samaypal under the office of Respondent No.3 as a daily wager on 18.02.1985. As per Annexure P/1, upon consideration of petitioner’s continuous service as daily wager, the petitioner was regularized as Samaypal on 26.04.2008. On completion of age of superannuation at 62 years of age, the petitioner was retired on 30.06.2017. Upon his retirement, the Petitioner's gratuity was paid as per rules, based on his entire service period. However, his service as a daily wage employee was not considered in determining his pension, resulting in a significantly lower pension amount. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court, on which the Hon'ble Court passed an order dated 12.10.2022, a copy of which is at Annexure P/2. On which no reasonable action has been taken by the respondents on the basis of merits and demerits. Without hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to be heard, respondent No. 03 has issued the order dated 11.11.2022 in question and refused to pay pension to the petitioner by calculating the service period from the date of appointment as a daily wage earner 18.02.1985. Hence this Petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been granted pension from the date of his initial service as an ad-hoc appointee i.e. 18.02.1985. When the respondent department has considered the entire service period of the petitioner for grant of gratuity then they ought to have considered the entire service period of the petitioner for grant of pension as well.

¶29

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that according to the Circular (Annexure R/3) issued by Finance Department bearing No.249/F 2018-04-04169/Vi./Ni./4 Finance Circular dated 26.5.18 (finance direction 30/2018), period of service as daily wager is counted so as to entitle the employee for grant of pension etc. However, the said period of service as a daily wager cannot be considered for calculation of pension from his initial date of service. As such, the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities.

¶31

Learned State counsel would support the order impugned.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition.

¶33

From the perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner as well as the other ad-hoc employees who were temporarily appointed and thereafter been regularized cannot claim pensionary benefits from their initial date of appointment. The date of initial appointment can only be considered so as to entitle the employee for calculating period for grant of pensionary benefits but not for the calculation of pension from the initial date of service.

¶34

For the reasons mentioned above, the Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Avinash

Ramesh Prasad Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Prasad Rathore 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

Smt. Prem Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Medani Prasad Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Singhaniya Construction Com. Vs Smt. Laxmin Bai

Nanki Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Yadav Vs Ganeshuram

Shri Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs the Asst. Commissioner Tribal Development