A directive by a court to the executive to reconsider a systemic policy issue regarding pensionary benefits, without imposing a positive mandamus or usurping policy-making powers, constitutes valid judicial exercise to ensure fairness, transparency, and constitutional compliance in service administration.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

23.04.2026

1. Heard Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants as well as Mr.Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 17.02.2026 (Rajendra Prasad Patel ane others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.777 of 2021, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondents herein / writ petitioners therein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge.

3. The case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge is that the writ petitioners were initially appointed during the years 1998–1999 as Shikshakarmis under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Their appointments were made through the prescribed process and against sanctioned posts under the Panchayat framework, and from the very inception, the writ petitioners continuously discharged teaching and allied educational responsibilities in government-run institutions.

4. Upon rendering long and uninterrupted service, the services of the writ petitioners were subsequently regularised strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory rules, Government resolutions, and executive instructions in force from time to time. Consequent upon such regularisation, the writ petitioners were absorbed into the School Education Department of the State Government, thereby bringing them within the fold of regular government service.

5. After absorption, the writ petitioners continued to serve in regular, pensionable establishments under the direct administrative, financial, and disciplinary control of the State Government, and their service conditions thereafter were governed by the relevant service rules applicable to government employees, including those relating to pay scales, service benefits, and retiral entitlements. Despite such absorption and continued service in pensionable posts, the period rendered by the writ petitioners as Shikshakarmis has not been accorded due recognition for the purposes of pensionary benefits.

6. The dispute giving rise to the batch of writ petitions originates from an administrative order dated 16.02.2021, passed by the Under Secretary, School Education Department, whereby certain representations pertaining to pensionary status were rejected. The said order was stated to have been issued in purported compliance of earlier directions of this Court. The writ petitioners contend that the said order reflects absence of a clear, uniform and settled executive position governing the applicability of the pension regime to employees whose service commenced prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme but whose regularisation and absorption occurred thereafter.

7. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Government issued Gazette Notifications dated 11.05.2022 and 20.01.2023 reinstating the Old Pension Scheme and prescribing an option mechanism for employees governed by the New Pension Scheme. However, according to the writ petitioners, despite restoration of the Old Pension Scheme, the State has not clarified the determinative date of appointment for pensionary purposes, resulting in continued ambiguity as to whether the relevant date is the date of initial engag