(WPS No.5875/2021) 2026:CGHC:23099-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5875 of 2021 Order reserved on: 7-5-2026 Order delivered on: 15-5-2026 Order (Full) uploaded on: 15-5-2026 R.S. Vishwakarma, S/o Late Shree B.L. Vishwakarma, Aged about 66 years, R/o A-59-60, Rajdhani Vihar Colony, Saddu, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, GAD, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Public Service Commission, Through Secretary PSC, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Union of India, Through Secretary, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel and Training, PG and Pensions, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 4. Account General, Chhattisgarh, Baloda Bazar Road, Zero Point, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.05.15 18:56:54 +0530 (WPS No.5875/2021) C.A.V. Order Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. For sake of exposition, this Order is divided in following parts:- S.No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Writ Petition 2 2. Quintessential Facts 3 3. Return on behalf of the State/Rule Making Authority 5 4. Return on behalf of the Chhattisgarh PSC/Respondent No.2 5 5. Submission of the Petitioner 5 6. Submission the State/Respondent No.1 6 7. Relevant Regulation governing Pension of the Petitioner 8 8. Discussion and Analysis 10 9. Comparison/Parity with Mr. M.S. Paikra 12 10. Conclusion and Relief/Cost 13 Writ Petition 1. Invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein, who stood retired as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, has filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated 13-8-2021 (Annexure P-19) and also sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1/rule-making authority for rectifying/amending the date of enforcement of the notification dated 5-12-2020 (Annexure P-9) by which such notification has been brought into force with effect from 1-4-2018. Page 3 of 13 (WPS No.5875/2021) Quintessential Facts 2. The petitioner herein was serving as Principal Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh and stood superannuated from the said post with effect from 31-1-2015 and his pension at the time of retirement was fixed at ₹ 11,59,800/- per annum. After being retired from the said post, the petitioner was requested to serve as Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission which he accepted as per the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2001 (for short, ‘the Regulations of 2001’) promulgated in accordance with Article 318(a) of the Constitution of India by the State Government i.e. the rule making authority, which the petitioner joined on 7-3-2015, thereafter, he was appointed as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh PSC by order dated 12-6- 2015. As Member of the Chhattisgarh PSC, the petitioner also submitted an option under Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations of 2001 for getting pension and other retirement benefits under the rules applicable to service to which he was appointed. The petitioner on attaining the age of 62 years, stood superannuated from the services of the Chairman, Chhattisgarh PSC with effect from 16-1-2017. 3. On 19-5-2017, the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2017 were notified which were made effective from 1-1-2016. These Rules were made applicable to all Government servants except contractual employees. After the revision of pay, the Chhattisgarh PSC recommended amendment in the Regulations of 2001 and while recommending amendment, the PSC recommended ₹ 13,50,000/- per annum as the maximum limit for pension after introduction of the 7th Pay Commission, which was only ₹ (WPS No.5875/2021) 4,80,000/- prior to that. Acting upon such recommendation, the Government of Chhattisgarh introduced amendment in the Regulations of 2001, dated 5-12-2020 which was made effective from 1-4-2018 (Annexure P-9). As per the amended Regulation 8(3), the maximum pension payable to Chairman, PSC was increased to ₹ 13,50,000/- per annum with effect from 1-4-2018. 4. The petitioner made representation on 2-8-2021 stating that one Mr. Bhaskar Choubey, who had retired from Government service in the year 2020 and had joined Madhya Pradesh Public Service commission, had been granted the benefit of regulation 8(2) of the Regulations of 2001 and his pension was calculated as ₹ 1,12,500/- per month, whereas on exercise of option under Regulation 8(1), the petitioner herein was being granted pension of ₹ 96,650/- per month and therefore the petitioner may also be granted pension of ₹ 1,12,500/- per month. The representation preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13-8-2021 (Annexure P-19) which he has challenged by filing the instant writ petition as being arbitrary, discriminatory and passed against the rules and regulations and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking relief that the order dated 13-8-2021 (Annexure P-19) be quashed and the notification dated 5-12-2020 (Annexure P-9) be amended and directed to be brought into force with effect from 1-4-2018 i.e. prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that his case is identical to that of one Mr. M.S. Paikra, who had also served the Chhattisgarh PSC as Member, and therefore he cannot be discriminated as Mr. Paikra has been granted pension and similar benefit be extended to him and the writ petition be allowed accordingly. Page 5 of 13 (WPS No.5875/2021) Return on behalf of the State/Rule Making Authority 5. The State/Rule Making Authority/respondent No.1 herein has filed return stating inter alia that the petitioner stood retired from the services of the Chairman, Chhattisgarh PSC on 16-1-2017 and at that time, the Regulations of 2001 were in force and the order dated 13-8-2021 is in accordance with law, and ordinarily, no direction can be issued for directing the rule making authority that the notification dated 5-12-2020 be brought into force with effect from any particular date and the case of the Mr. M.S. Paikra is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case i.e. the petitioner’s case, as the annual pension of Mr. Paikra from Government service was ₹ 3,95,700/- and the annual pension for service with the PSC was ₹ 19,756/- and thus, the total pension was less than ₹ 4,68,000/-, therefore, Mr. Paikra was rightly extended the benefit of pension, whereas, pension of the petitioner at the time of retirement from Government service was ₹ 11,59,800/- per annum i.e. far more than the maximum limit of ₹ 4,80,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner was held not entitled for additional pension as Chairman, Chhattisgarh PSC. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Return on behalf of the Chhattisgarh PSC/Respondent No.2 6. The Chhattisgarh PSC/respondent No.2 herein has also filed separate return supporting the action of the State Government denying additional pension to the petitioner. Submission of the Petitioner 7. Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, would submit that the State Government is absolutely (WPS No.5875/2021) unjustified in denying additional pension to the petitioner, his case has been wrongly distinguished from that of Mr. M.S. Paikra, who had also served the Madhya Pradesh PSC for a period of 1 year 9 months and 10 days, which was counted as 2 years and accordingly, pension was granted to him. It is further submitted that financial hardship is not a ground for not granting monthly pension to the petitioner, as it would be hardly ₹ 4,665/- per month (yearly pension ₹ 27,990/- multiplied by the period of service of two years and divided by 12 months). As such, the petitioner is entitled for pension within the upper limit from the date when the upper limit has been enhanced. The notification dated 5-12-2020 which has been brought in force with effect from 1-4-2018 can be directed to be brought into force with effect from 1-1-2016, as the amendment was made because of revision of pay from 1-1-2016, so the effective date of notification should have been 1-1-2016. As such, the writ petition be allowed and the order dated 23-8-2021 be quashed and the petitioner be granted additional pension as claimed by him. Submission of the State/Respondent No.1 8. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 herein, would submit that the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the case of Mr. M.S. Paikra, as the annual pension of Mr. Paikra from Government service was ₹ 3,95,700/- and the annual pension for service with the PSC was ₹ 19,756/-, thus, his total pension was less than ₹ 4,68,000/-, therefore, he has rightly been extended the benefit of additional pension, whereas at the time of retirement, the petitioner’s pension was ₹ 11,59,800/- i.e. far more than (WPS No.5875/2021) the maximum limit of ₹ 4,68,000/- as per Regulation 8(3) of the applicable Regulations of 2001 and therefore he has rightly been denied additional pension as Chairman, Chhattisgarh PSC. He would further submit that the petitioner has prayed that the amendment in Regulation 8(3) dated 5-12-2020 may be made effective from 1-1-2016 instead of 1-4- 2018, as actually made applicable. This prayer is also liable to be rejected in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. K. Pushpavanam and others1, as the constitutional court would ordinarily not like to issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature / rule making authority to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. As such, the writ petition being completely devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. Article 318 of the Constitution of India provides power to make regulations as to conditions of service of members and staff of the Commission. It states as under: - “318. Power to make regulations as to conditions of service of members and staff of the Commission.—In the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, the President and, in the case of a State Commission, the Governor of the State may by regulations— (a) determine the number of members of the Commission and their conditions of service; and (b) make provision with respect to the number of members of the staff of the Commission and their conditions of service: 1 (2023) 20 SCC 736 (WPS No.5875/2021) Provided that the conditions of service of a member of a Public Service Commission shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.” 11. The Governor, in the case of a State Commission, by virtue of power conferred under Article 318(a) of the Constitution of India, is empowered to determine the number of members of the Commission and their conditions of service. Relevant Regulation governing Pension of the Petitioner 12. Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations of 2001, as it existed on the date of retirement of the petitioner, was as under: - “(1) and (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) A Member covered under sub-regulation (1), on ceasing to hold office, shall, for each completed year of service rendered in the Commission, be entitled to pension at the rate of Rs.10,889/- per annum in the case of Chairman, and Rs.9,878/- per annum in the case of Member, subject to the condition that the total amount of pension for Government service and service in the Commission shall not exceed Rs.4,80,000/- per annum in the case of Chairman and Rs.4,68,000/- per annum in the case of Member. No pension shall be payable under this sub-regulation to those Members of the Commission who, under sub-regulation (2), opt to have their service in the Commission counted for pension under Government service.” 13. A careful perusal of Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations of 2001, as it existed on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. as on 1-1-2016, would show that the Chairman of the PSC shall be entitled to pension at the rate of ₹ 10,889/- per annum subject to the condition that the total amount of pension for Government service and service in the Commission shall not exceed ₹ 4,80,000/- per annum in the case of Chairman and ₹ 4,68,000/- per annum in the case of Member. Admittedly and undisputedly, at the (WPS No.5875/2021) time of retirement of the petitioner and when he joined as Member/ Chairman of the Commission, his pension was ₹ 11,59,800/- per annum i.e. far more than the maximum limit of ₹ 4,80,000/- fixed by Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations of 2001. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for additional pension as Chairman of the PSC at the date of his retirement from the post of Chairman, Chhattisgarh PSC. 14. This Regulation 8(3) suffered amendment by notification dated 5-12-2020, which was made applicable with effect from 1-4-2018 and which states as under: - “(3) A Member covered under sub-regulation (1), on ceasing to hold office, shall, for each completed year of service rendered in the Commission, be entitled to pension at the rate of Rs.27,990/- per annum in the case of Chairman, and Rs.25,420/- per annum in the case of Member, subject to the condition that the total amount of pension for Government service and service in the Commission shall not exceed Rs.13,50,000/- per annum in the case of Chairman and Rs.13,44,600/- per annum in the case of Member. No pension shall be payable under this sub-regulation to those Members of the Commission who, under sub-regulation (2), opt to have their service in the Commission counted for pension under Government service.” 15. This Regulation has been brought into force with effect from 1-4-2018 and it provides that the Chairman, on ceasing to hold office, shall be entitled to pension at the rate of ₹ 27,990/- per annum and the Member shall be entitled to pension at the rate of ₹ 25,420/- per annum subject to the condition that the total amount of pension for Government service and service in the Commission shall not exceed ₹ 13,50,000/- per annum in the case of Chairman and ₹ 13,44,600/- per annum in the case of Member. Page 10 of 13 (WPS No.5875/2021) Discussion and Analysis 16. Admittedly, this Regulation has to come into force with effect from 1-4- 2018 and the petitioner stood retired from the post of Chairman of the Chhattisgarh PSC on 16-1-2017 much prior to the date of enforcement of the amended Regulation, which has come into force with effect from 1-4- 2018. Since the petitioner has retired much prior to coming into force of the Regulation dated 5-12-2020 which is made effective from 1-4-2018, the Regulation dated 5-12-2020 would not be applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner will not be entitled for additional pension in case of Regulation dated 5-12-2020, as it is well settled that the amount of pension which a public servant will be entitled to receive upon retirement is worked out in accordance with the relevant applicable pension rules. 17. The vehement submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Regulation dated 5-12-2020 be made applicable with effect from 1-1-2016 deserves to be noted for rejection. It is for the rule-making authority to consider and bring the Regulation effective from a particular date. It is the complete prerogative of the rule-making authority to make applicable the circular from a particular date, particularly when it involves financial implications, as it is the policy decision having financial implications and it is well settled that policy decision having financial implications shall not be interfered as it might have a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate and others2, has held that no court 2 (1991) 3 SCC 11 (WPS No.5875/2021) or tribunal could compel the government to change its policy involving expenditure. This view was echoed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and another v. Bhagwan and others3 and it has been held that the Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. 19. Coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner had retired as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh PSC on 16-1-2017, whereas the notification dated 5-12- 2020 has been given effect from 1-4-2018 and the petitioner has prayed that he may at least be given the benefit of the said notification from 1-4- 2018. The prayer of the petitioner is completely misplaced since the benefit of amended Regulation dated 5-12-2020 is available only to those who have retired on or after 1-4-2018. 20. In the matter of Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL and another v. K.J. George and others4, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while clarifying a similar situation where revision of pay, date from which it is applicable and date of voluntary retirement of the respondents therein have been raised, have held that they are entitled to reckon pensionary and retiral benefits in terms of the Pay Commission Report, and observed as under: - “3. As already noticed, they were retired with effect from 16-12-1995 and 3-12-1995 respectively but because of the provision of FR 56 they were allowed to retire on the last date of the month, the grace period of which was granted to them for the purpose of pay and allowances only. Legally, they were retired on 16-12-1995 and 3-12-1995 respectively and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that 3 (2022) 4 SCC 193 4 (2008) 14 SCC 699 (WPS No.5875/2021) their pensionary benefits can be reckoned from 1-1-1996. The relationship of the employer and employee terminated in the afternoon of 16-12-1995 and 3-12-1995 respectively. In view thereof the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are accordingly set aside and these two appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.” 21. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of additional pension by Regulation dated 5-12-2020 and it cannot be directed to be amended by a writ of mandamus that it should be brought into force with effect from 1-1-2016. Comparison/Parity with Mr. M.S. Paikra 22. As held in the foregoing paragraphs, Mr. M.S. Paikra, who had also served the Chhattisgarh PSC as Member, stands on different footing than that of the petitioner. The correct position is, annual pension of Mr. Paikra from Government service was ₹ 3,95,700/- and his annual pension for service with the PSC was ₹ 19,756/-, thus, the total pension was less than ₹ 4,68,000/- per annum, which was clearly within the limit as prescribed under Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations of 2001 as unamended, whereas pension of the petitioner at the time of his retirement was ₹ 11,59,800/- which is far more than the maximum limit of ₹ 4,80,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to additional pension as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh PSC. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed by him and accordingly, he is not entitled for the benefit of additional pension and also no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the rule-making authority to make Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations of 2001 / notification dated 5-12-2020 applicable with effect from 1-1-2016. Furthermore, the petitioner’s case is distinguishable from the case of Mr. (WPS No.5875/2021) M.S. Paikra, who has been granted additional pension as Member of the Chhattisgarh PSC. Conclusion and Relief/Cost 23. In sum and substance, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed and accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Soma