2026:CGHC:13646-DB NAFR Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU B R A A B JE L N U DRA R BH AJ A E N N A D R R K A AR BHANARKARDate:

2026.03.23 17:40:08 +0530 WA No. 470 of 2022

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Engineer In Chief Pubic Works Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department Nirmal Bhawan Sector 19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Executive Engineer, Public Work Department Division Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

6 - Joint Director, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellants versus

1 - Baisakhu Sahu S/o Samay Lal Sahu, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Tendubhata Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Amrika Sahu S/o Ananda Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kevtara Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Tiharu Ram Lodhi S/o Joidha Lodhi Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Muglatola, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Appellants : Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

23.03.2026

1. Heard Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State. None appears on behalf of the respondents to press this writ appeal. However, preliminary submission/objection has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. The appellants/State have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22/11/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6454 of 2021 by which learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the writ petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees in the Public Works Department at different points of time prior to 31/12/1988. Subsequently, they continued to discharge their duties as permanent gangmen in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Department Manual. It is pertinent to mention that their engagement at all relevant times remained under the category of daily wage/permanent gangman and not under the Work Charged or Contingency Paid Establishment. Pursuant to the circular issued by the State Government dated 05/03/2008, which provided for regularization of employees engaged prior to

31/12/1988, the services of the writ petitioners were considered for regularization. In compliance thereof, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bemetra Division, issued an order dated 26/08/2008 whereby the services of the writ petitioners were regularized against regular posts. It is submitted that this was the first occasion when the writ petitioners were brought into the regular establishment. Thereafter, the writ petitioners continued to serve in the regular establishment until they attained the age of superannuation and retired on different dates. Upon retirement, pensionary benefits were extended to the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with the length of their regular service, i.e., from the date of regularization on 26/08/2008.

4. The State has taken a specific stand that the writ petitioners were never appointed under the Work Charged or Contingency Paid Establishment and, therefore, the provisions of the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 are not applicable to their case. It is further submitted that there exists a clear distinction between employees appointed under the Work Charged/Contingency Paid Establishment and those engaged as daily wagers or permanent gangmen under the departmental manual. However, reference is also made to the subsequent circular dated 26/05/2018, which provides that in cases where a