Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 1689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 3602 of 2018
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pensionary Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 - Section 49 - Apportionment of liability - Liability for pension payment between successor states - Held, States of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are directed to bear their respective shares in payment of pension as per the 6th Pay Commission scheme. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a society representing retired college lecturers, challenged the State's refusal to grant 6th Pay Commission benefits to members who retired prior to 01.01.2006. The state argued financial constraints and distinguished retirees based on the date of implementation of the pay commission.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the classification of pensioners based on retirement dates is impermissible as all pensioners constitute a single homogeneous class. The state cannot deny revisions simply based on a cut-off date.
Issues: Whether the state can create two classes of pensioners (pre-2006 and post-2006) for the purpose of denying pension revision, and how the financial burden should be apportioned between the State of Chhattisgarh and the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the settled law in cases involving similar pension controversies, the court ruled that pension revision is necessitated by the cost of living, which affects all pensioners equally, rendering the cut-off date arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14.
Result: Petition disposed of with a direction to pay arrears as per the 6th Pay Commission within 120 days.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash K. Mishra
For the Respondents: Vinay Pandey, Bhupendra Pandey
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of relief sought and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding classification and financial liability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. equality under article 14 for pensioners regarding revision. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final direction for pension revision and payment sharing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
19/02/2025
1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly he pleased to call for the entire reconts pertaining to petitioners' case for its kind perusal
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugried order 28/02/2018 (Annexure P/-fssued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise and consolidate the pension/family pension payable to the petitioners by complying with and giving effect to the para 4.2 of the Notification 18.09.2008 approved and adopted for implementation by the State Government vide ita decision dated 18.09.2008 (संकल्प).
10.4 This Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioners i.c. pre-2006 retirees arrears of pension from 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008, along with interest.
10.5 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think Jelit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioners
10.6. That, the circular dated 31.08.2009 to the extent that there is no provision with regard to fixing of pension on revised pay scale is against the "Sankalp" and notifications issued by the Government of India and discriminative as such liable to be quashed by the Hon'ble Court.
10.7. That, the respondent State be kindly directed to frame pension rules in conformity with the "Sankalp" at per with Govt. Servent who retired on or after 1/1/2006 so that pensioner may not suffer any loss on account of revision of pay of pension after implementation of 6th pay commission.
2) Facts of the present case are that the pensioners of Government Colleges are members of petitioner-society and they have claimed benefits of 6th Pay Commission. It is pleaded that members of petitioner society, who retired after 01.01.2006 have been extended benefits of 6th Pay Commission whereas the members, who retired from services prior to 01.01.2006 have not been extended the aforestated benefit. Earlier, WP(S) No. 5333 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner-society, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2018 reserving liberty in favor of the petitioner-society to make a representation before the respondent authorities. Pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2018, the petitioner-society made a representation which was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.02.2018.
3) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-society would submit that the State Government cannot create two classes of pensioners, namely, government servants who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and after 01.01.2006. He further submits that such classification is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta Versus Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & Ors. and other connected matters reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4684
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 01.01.2000 and the liability was apportioned between the two states according to the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 . He further submits that the members of petitioner society who retired prior to 01.0
