ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, directing the respondent authorities to including the service period spend by the petitioner as temporary employee for pensionable service, as per circular dated 02.03.2005 of the State Government and as per order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.281 of 2013 along with other batch of appeals with interest @ 18% annum. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awards of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage labour in the year 1979 and her services were regularized by the department on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 04.01.1988. He would further submit that the petitioner retired from services on 12.06.2017. He would also submit that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefit under the provisions of the Work Charged and Contingency Fund Paid Employee Pension Rules, 1979 by counting her services rendered by her as a temporary employee. He would further contend that according to the Circular issued by the State Government on 02.03.2005, her status was of a permanent employee. He would also contend that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Devantin Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Appeal No. 1073 of 2012 and other connected writ appeals. He would further argue that against the order passed in the matter of Devantin Bai (supra), the State Government has preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is still pending. Thus, he would pray to dispose of this matter in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Lakhanram Sahu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2013 and further direction to the State Government to make payment of arrears of pension etc. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur and Another Vs. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur and Another Vs. State of Bihar and others, Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2023 and other connected matters. He would further submit that the argument advanced by Mr. Sharma cannot be accepted. He would also submit that if the same is accepted, it would be tantamount to regularizing services of the petitioner from the initial appointment as work charged or daily wages. He would further contend that there is a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work-charged employee working under the work-charged establishment. He would further argue that the petitioner was not appointed after due process of selection and as per the Recruitment Rules, therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner as work charged employee cannot be counted for the purpose of pension/quantum of pension. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as the labour on daily wages in the year 1979 and her services were regularized on the post of the Lower Division Clerk on 04.01.1988. The petitioner retired from services on 12.06.2017 and this petition was filed in the year 2020 claiming therein pension from the date of initial appointment. Though earlier the issue was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Devantin Bai (supra) in favour of the employees, subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) while dealing with a similar issue has categorically held that the services rendered by the work-charged employee cannot be counted for the purposes of pension and quantum of pension. 6. In the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 6.2 observed and held as under:- “6.2 Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment. The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.” 7. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, no direction can be issued to the State to reckon the period of services rendered by the petitioner as daily wage or work charged employee for assessment of the pension or quantum of pension. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).