1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3387 of 2021  Mrs Jolly Vincent W/o Shri K.K. Vincent Aged About 58 Years Working As Udt And Posted At Bharat Mata (Mh) Higher Secondary School Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Second Floor, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Principal Bharat Mata (Mh) Higher Secondary School Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Nelson Panna, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ/order/direction including the writ of mandamus and directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the pension 2 to the petitioner at par with the teachers of School Education Department, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ/order/direction including the writ of mandamus and directing the respondents particularly respondent no. 1 to provide grant in aid to the institution of the petitioner for payment of special grant for pension to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher under respondent No. 4–School, which is a government-aided school and her services are governed by the Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan (Anudan Ka Praday) Act, 1979. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive pension according to Rule 33 of the Revised Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1979, which states that the salary of teachers and other employees working in private institutions that receive grant-in-aid from the State Government would be similar to that of the employees of government educational institutions. He contends that the benefit of pension has been granted to the teachers working in the government-aided colleges. He further contends that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of pension to the petitioner at par with the teachers working under the School Education Department. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is an employee of the private educational institution and she was appointed according to provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan (Anudan Ka Praday) Act, 1979 and the provisions of the 3 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 do not apply to the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner was not appointed by the State Government and she is not drawing salary from the State Government; therefore, she cannot claim parity with teachers of the School Education Department. He argues that the manner of recruitment and contract of employment are also different. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar Versus S.A. Hasan1. 4) Admittedly, the petitioner is a teacher appointed by the respondent No. 4 school, which is a 100% grant-in-aid school, and the recruitment rules are entirely different from those of the teachers appointed by the School Education Department. The terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 school are different from the terms and conditions of the appointment of teachers working under the State Government. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.A. Hasan (supra) while dealing with a similar issue has held that a government servant can claim pension only if qualifies the following conditions:- (i) the service must be under the Government. (ii) the employment must be substantive and permanent, and (iii) the service must be paid by the Government. 6) The petitioner does not fulfill the above mentioned conditions. Further, the manner of the recruitment and the rules governing the service conditions are entirely different and there is no whisper either in the appointment order or in any other documents with regard to the 1. AIR 2002 SC 1258 4 applicability of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 to the services of the petitioner, thus, her claim with regard to the pension appears to be misconceived. 7) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of S.A. Hasan (supra) and the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya