Daily wage service rendered prior to regularization counts toward qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The respondents were initially engaged as daily wage employees in the Public Works Department (PWD) prior to December 31, 1988

They continued their duties as "permanent gangmen" under the PWD Manual and were subsequently regularized against regular posts on August 26, 2008, pursuant to a State circular

Upon their retirement, the State granted pensionary benefits calculated only from the date of regularization (2008), excluding their prior service as daily wagers

The respondents challenged this before a learned Single Judge (WPS No. 6454 of 2021), who directed that their service prior to regularization be counted for retiral benefits, following the precedent set in Writ Appeal No. 88 of 2019

The State filed the present writ appeal, contending that daily wage service does not constitute "qualifying service" under the applicable pension rules

1. Whether service rendered as a daily wager prior to regularization can be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of granting pensionary and retiral benefits

2. Whether the respondents, as former daily wagers/permanent gangmen, are entitled to the protections of the Chhattisgarh (Work-Charge and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979

The court considered the Chhattisgarh (Work-Charge and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, specifically Rule 3 (applicability), Rule 2(c) (definition of permanent employee), and Rule 6 (commencement of qualifying service)

It referenced the State Government Circular dated May 26, 2018, which allows daily wage service to be added to qualifying service for pension if the employee is later regularized

The court further relied on the principles established in Ram Avtar Verma & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh, which held that service in temporary positions may be counted as pensionable if the employee is subsequently regularized

The court further relied on the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 88 of 2019

The State argued that Rule 3 of the 1979 Rules limits pension benefits to "permanent" employees and explicitly excludes daily wage and muster-roll workers from the definitions of contingency-paid or work-charged employees

However, the court noted that the respondents had been classified as a "permanent gang" and were granted increments and revised pay scales prior to their formal regularization in 2008

The court found that the State's position ignored established judicial precedents and its own policy decisions, specifically the circular dated May 26, 2018, which recognizes the inclusion of daily wage service for pension purposes upon regularization

Furthermore, the court observed that similar challenges by the State in related matters (e.g., WA No. 163/2021) had been dismissed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court

Consequently, the court determined that the learned Single Judge correctly applied the principle that regularized service must encompass the preceding daily wage tenure for pension calculation

The court held that service rendered as a daily wage employee prior to regularization must be counted toward the calculation of pensionary and other retiral benefits, subject to the verification of service records

No costs were awarded