Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10144
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026:CGHC:14974
WPS No. 4523 of 2021
Chhattisgarh Pensioners Samaj Collectorate Premises, Raipur Through Its Regional President Shri Chetan Bharti, S/o Late Sukhram Bharti, Aged About 76 Years, Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Secretary Department Of General Administration Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
4 - The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, Second Floor Major Dhyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Central Government Counsel
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
01/04/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ruchi Nagar
For the Respondents: Topilal Bareth, Amrito Das, Pramod Shrivastava
Classification of pensioners into separate groups based on retirement dates for the purpose of denying pension revision arrears is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as all pensioners constitute a single class.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Revision of pension - Discrimination based on retirement date - Cut-off dates for pension revision that segment pensioners into separate classes are violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. All pensioners form a single class for the grant of revised pension, and classification without a rational nexus to the object of mitigating cost of living is arbitrary.
(B) Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 - S. 49 - Pensionary liabilities - Absence of mutual concurrence between successor states cannot relieve the state of its obligation to pay arrears of pension to eligible beneficiaries.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is an association of pensioners formerly employed in the state of Madhya Pradesh, who became residents of Chhattisgarh following the state's reorganization. The petitioner challenged state circulars that fixed discriminatory entitlement dates (01.09.2008 and 01.04.2018) for 6th and 7th Pay Commission pension revisions, respectively, thereby denying arrears for 32 months and 27 months. The respondents argued that the denial was due to a lack of concurrence from the state of Madhya Pradesh regarding liability sharing.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the classification of pensioners based on an arbitrary cut-off date is discriminatory. The directives issued by the state regarding the delayed implementation dates for pay revision are set aside.
Issues: Whether the state can create different classes of pensioners by fixing arbitrary cut-off dates for the revision of pensionary benefits, and whether the absence of concurrence under Section 49 of the Reorganisation Act justifies the withholding of arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: All pensioners belong to a single class, as the purpose of revising pension is to offset rising living costs which affect all pensioners equally regardless of their retirement date. Following the precedent of the Supreme Court, the state cannot arbitrarily create sub-classes through discriminatory cut-off dates in the absence of valid classification criteria.
Result: Petition allowed.
Order on Board
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction commanding authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the petitioner’s case.
10.2 The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the impugned communication dated 08.07.2019 & 22.05.2020 (Annexure P/01, Colly)
10.3 The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the impugned clarification dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure P/02) to the extent of fixing date on entitlement from 01.09.2008 instead of 01.01.2006, since the same is discriminatory and violative of the Article 14.
10.4 The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the impugned clarification dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P/03) to the extent of fixing date on entitlement from 01.04.2018 instead of 01.01.2016, since the same is discriminatory and violative of the Article 14.
10.5 In consequence of the above this Hon’ble court may command the respondents to forthwith release the arrears for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 (32 months) and also for the period of 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 (27 months).
10.6 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon’ble the Court deem fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a registered association representing pensioners who were originally recruited in various departments of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Following the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the members became residents of the newly formed State of Chhattisgarh. The State of Chhattisgarh introduced the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 effective from 01.01.2006 (6th Pay Commission) and the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 effective from 01.01.2016 (7th Pay Commission). However, through various circulars (dated 31.08.2009 Annexure P/2 and 06.07.2018 Annexure P/3), the respondents fixed discriminatory entitlement dates for pensioners who retired prior to these implementation dates. Pre-2006 retirees were only granted benefits from 01.09.2008 (denying 32 months of arrears), and pre-2016 retirees from 01.04.2018 (denying 27 months of arrears). The respondents denied these arrears citing a lack of "mutual agreement" or concurrence from the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding pensionary liabilities under Section 49 of the Act of 2000. Despite a clarification from the Union of India/Respondent No. 4 stating that no such mutual agreement is required under the Act, the State authorities maintained their refusal, leading to this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the controversy is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WPS No. 3602 of 2018 (decided on 19.02.2025), where it was held that creating a separate class of pensioners based on retirement dates for the purpose of pay revision is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The relevant paragraph nos. 7 and 8 are as under :-
“7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All Manipur Pensioners Association Versus State of Manipur & Ors. reported in AIR- ONLINE 2019 SC 407 held that there was no valid justification in creating two classes, i.e., government servants who retired pre-1996 and post-1996. It was further held that for the purpose of the grant of revised pension, such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose for the grant of revised pension. It is also held that all the pensioners form one class and all were held entitled to pension as per pension rules. It will be apt to reproduce the relevant paras 8 and 8.1 herein below:-
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.
