2025:CGHC:56722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.1080 of 2020

1 - Ramprasad Singh S/o Late Yamuna Singh Aged About 75 Years Retired Head Master, (Middle School) R/o Village Khorma Das Ghar, Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

2 - Ramchandra Roy S/o Rajnayaran Roy Aged About 76 Years Retired Head Master, (Middle School) R/o Village Pratappur Khorma Das Ghar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

3 - Brij Bhushan Prasad Verma S/o Shri Late Raghunandan Sahay Aged About 79 Years Retired Head Master, (Primary School) R/o Village Khorma Das Ghar Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

4 - Shiv Prasad Yadav S/o Late Shri Salik Ram Aged About 79 Digitally signed by Years Retired Forestor, R/o Village Dawankara, Das Ghar SISTLA SISTLA NEELIMA NEELIMA VISHNU VISHNU PRIYA Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners PRIYA Date:

2025.11.21 +0530 versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - District Education Officer, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Division Forest Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners :Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma along with Shri GP Mathur, Advocates.

For Respondents/State :Shri Amandeep Singh, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order on Board

21.11.2025

1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioners sought the following reliefs:-

(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash (Annexure P-1) and (Annexure P-6) and petitioner may be granted arrears of 6^th pay from 01.01.2006 and arrears of 7^th pay from 01.01.2016 with interest, in the interest of justice.

(ii) any other relief which may be suitable in the

facts and circumstances of the case, may also be

granted.

2. The material facts germane to the present case are that

Petitioners/pensioners have retired prior to 01.01.2006 and the

State, in a discriminatory manner, created two classes of

pensioners for the purpose of extending the benefit of Pay Revision for 6^th and 7^th pay scale vide Finance instruction 36/2018 dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure P-6) whereby, the employees who stood retired before 01.01.2016 were granted arrears w.e.f April, 2018 and the employees who stood retired after 01.01.2016 were granted arrears of 7^th pay w.e.f.

01.01.2016, which is not permissible. Hence this Petition.

3. Shri Sharma submits that the State Government cannot create two classes of pensioners for grant of pensionary benefits and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on the matter of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur & Ors. reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 407 wherein, it has been held that there was no valid justification in creating two classes, i.e. Government servants who retired pre-1996 and post-1996. He further submits that in the said case, it has been categorically held that for the purpose of grant of revised pension, such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose for the grant of revised pension. He further submits that it was further held therein that all the pensioners form one class and all were held entitled to pension as per pension rules and it will be apt to reproduce relevant paras i.e. 8 and 8.1, which are as under:-

“8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm

opinion that there is no valid justification to create

two classes viz, one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension. In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classific