Laxman Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:6476

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6365 of 2022

¶6

Sukhdas Sahu S/o Shri Ramtu Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Khamhardih, Thana And Tahsil - Khairagarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Khairagarh, Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4. The Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5. Treasury Officer District Treasury Office Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

AND

¶16

WPS No. 6495 of 2022

¶17

Laxman Yadav, S/o Shri Kanhai Yadav, Aged About 63 Years, Occupation Ex Govt. Employee Retd., Forester Forest Region Gurur, Balod Division, R/o Village Jagtara Ward No. 16, Tahsil & District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

1. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

Digitally DEEPTI signed by JHA DEEPTI JHA

¶22

2

¶23

2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Department Of Forest Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

4. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

5. The Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

6. Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

--- Respondents

¶29

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶30

For Petitioner in both the petitions	: Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For State/Respondents in WPS	: Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Deputy G.A.
No.6365/2022
For State/Respondents in WPS	: Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy G.A.
No.6495/2022

¶31

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶32

Order on Board

¶33

05/02/2026

¶34

1. As the identical issue involved in these writ petitions, they are being heard

¶35

and decided together by this common order.

¶36

2. For the sake of gravity, WPS No.6365/2022 is taken as a lead case.

¶37

3. The WPS No.6365/2022 has been preferred by the petitioner under Article

¶38

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-

¶39

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondents to consider the complete length of service rendered by petitioner for pension purpose.

¶40

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by this Court in identical issues.

¶41

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

¶42

3

¶43

4. The WPS No.6495/2022 has been preferred by the petitioner under Article

¶44

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-

¶45

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondents to consider the complete service for calculating the pension and amount of leave encashment.

¶46

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondents to revise the pension of petitioner on the basis of 41 years services considering the period as qualifying service.

¶47

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of petitioner in light of the decision of this Court.

¶48

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

¶49

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage employee and was subsequently regularized on 12.09.2007. After the retirement of the petitioner, his retiral dues including pension and leave encashment were paid to him by calculating his service only from the date of his regularization. He further submits that while the gratuity was paid by also counting the period served by him as a daily wager, no such claim was granted to the petitioner regarding his pension and leave encashment. Consequently, this writ petition was filed seeking the aforementioned relief.

¶50

6. 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

¶51

4

¶52

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 petitioner 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.

¶53

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

¶54

“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 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. 8677-8678 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.

¶55

8. Thus, these writ petitions are also stand disposed of in terms of order passed in WPS No.10696/ 2019.

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶58

Deepti Jha

Laxman Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Yadav v. the 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

Shiv Shankar Sao Vs Smt. Osho Devi - Dead. through Lrs.

Shrenik Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Swaraj Baghel Vs Smt. Manorama Baghel

Kanwal Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juhi Women Self Help Group Ranka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aditya Goel Vs Akashdeep Goel