Pensioners constitute a single class; creating sub-classes based on retirement dates for pay revision is arbitrary and violates Article 14, as the cost of living affects all retirees equally. Inter-state mutual concurrence cannot be a ground to deny these dues.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“

10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner’s cases.

10.2 That the Hon’ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent authority to release of revised pension as per 7th pay commission and other dues to the petitioner with interest from the date when it is made applicable and also direct to re-fix the pension of the petitioner as per rules.

10.3 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed.

10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in Forest Department at Raipur Division Raipur. He retired from services attaining age of superannuation on 26.06.2000. The petitioner submitted application dated 07.02.2005 to the effect that the government sanctioned pay scale of Rs.3050-1530/- from 01.01.1996 but benefit of said pay scale has not been given to the petitioner. It is also contended that pension of petitioner has not been revised properly and he is getting pension Rs.1275/- per month. On 24.02.2015 the respondent authorities issued a letter to the Joint Divisional Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension to resolve the dispute of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 forwarded the case of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 for necessary action and payment of pension/gratuity amount based on revised pay scale from 01.01.1996. 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 and 06.07.2018, the respondents fixed different entitlement dates for pensioners, who retired prior to these implementation dates. Pre-2006 retirees were only granted benefits from 01.09.2008 whereas pre-2016 retirees from 01.04.2018. The respondents denied 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 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