Regularization of daily wage service for pensionary benefits is subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court proceedings.

The fourteen petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage employees and subsequently regularized in the "work charge and contingency paid employee" establishment under the Water Resources Department

Seeking the advantage of their total length of service, the petitioners filed a writ petition praying that their services be counted for pensionary purposes from the date of their initial engagement rather than from the date of regularization

The petitioners contended that the issue had already been decided in their favor by a Co-ordinate Bench and a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court

The State opposed the petition, noting that the underlying judgments relied upon by the petitioners are currently under challenge and have been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

1. Whether the past services of the petitioners as daily wage employees can be counted for the purpose of pension under the relevant Pension Rules

2. Whether the High Court should grant relief while the core legal issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 8677-8678/2023

The Court referred to Rule 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which pertains to the counting of past services for pensionary benefits

It also acknowledged the judicial hierarchy and the doctrine of stay, noting that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Chhattisgarh v. Laxman Prasad Morajdhwaj (SLP (C) Nos. 8677-8678/2023), has issued an interim stay on previous orders of the High Court that allowed the counting of daily wage service for pension

The Court observed that the grievance raised by the petitioners is identical to the legal question currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

While the petitioners relied on previous favorable rulings by the High Court, the Court noted that the Supreme Court’s interim stay on those specific judgments rendered them temporarily unenforceable for new petitioners

Rather than keeping the litigation pending indefinitely, the Court determined that the most efficient course of action was to dispose of the petition by binding the parties to the eventual outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings

This ensures that the petitioners receive the benefit mutatis mutandis if the law is ultimately settled in favor of the employees without requiring fresh litigation

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the employees, the respondents are directed to extend the pensionary benefits to the petitioners without further delay

Liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a fresh petition should any grievance persist after the Supreme Court's decision