1 2025:CGHC:56722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.1080 of 2020 1 - Ramprasad Singh S/o Late Yamuna Singh Aged About 75 Years Retired Head Master, (Middle School) R/o Village Khorma Das Ghar, Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramchandra Roy S/o Rajnayaran Roy Aged About 76 Years Retired Head Master, (Middle School) R/o Village Pratappur Khorma Das Ghar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Brij Bhushan Prasad Verma S/o Shri Late Raghunandan Sahay Aged About 79 Years Retired Head Master, (Primary School) R/o Village Khorma Das Ghar Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shiv Prasad Yadav S/o Late Shri Salik Ram Aged About 79 Years Retired Forestor, R/o Village Dawankara, Das Ghar Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.11.21 16:32:03 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Education Officer, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Division Forest Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners :Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma along with Shri GP Mathur, Advocates. For Respondents/State :Shri Amandeep Singh, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 21.11.2025 1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioners sought the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash (Annexure P-1) and (Annexure P-6) and petitioner may be granted arrears of 6th pay from 01.01.2006 and arrears of 7th pay from 01.01.2016 with interest, in the interest of justice. (ii) any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. The material facts germane to the present case are that Petitioners/pensioners have retired prior to 01.01.2006 and the State, in a discriminatory manner, created two classes of 3 pensioners for the purpose of extending the benefit of Pay Revision for 6th and 7th pay scale vide Finance instruction 36/2018 dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure P-6) whereby, the employees who stood retired before 01.01.2016 were granted arrears w.e.f April, 2018 and the employees who stood retired after 01.01.2016 were granted arrears of 7th pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016, which is not permissible. Hence this Petition. 3. Shri Sharma submits that the State Government cannot create two classes of pensioners for grant of pensionary benefits and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on the matter of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur & Ors. reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 407 wherein, it has been held that there was no valid justification in creating two classes, i.e. Government servants who retired pre-1996 and post-1996. He further submits that in the said case, it has been categorically held that for the purpose of grant of revised pension, such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose for the grant of revised pension. He further submits that it was further held therein that all the pensioners form one class and all were held entitled to pension as per pension rules and it will be apt to reproduce relevant paras i.e. 8 and 8.1, which are as under:- “8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create 4 two classes viz, one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension. In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a valid classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cut-off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit. 8.1 As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute that as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective 5 of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class. Therefore, by such a classification/cut-off date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision." He further submits that the said ratio has been followed in Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta vs. Principal Secretary, State of M.P & Ors. and other connected matters reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4684 wherein, at paras 25 and 27, it was materially observed as under:- “25. So far as the ground raised by the State regarding the financial burden is concerned, it is reiterated that it has already been taken care of by the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra). Whereas, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of pension as per 6th pay commission which was not in existence at the time of retirement of the petitioner, it is found that the State has not clarified in their reply as to how the non-grant of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioner would be a distinguishing factor in the present case. And otherwise also, in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra), this Court, in para 5 has already taken into account the effect that it is only after 01.01.1996, that the pay commission's recommendations were implemented, and as has been noted in Sultan Khan (supra) in which the decision in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra) has been distinguished, and it is also observed in para 8 of Sultan Khan (supra) that the writ appeal as also an SLP against the order passed in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra) have already been rejected, thus, the case of the petitioner would also be covered by the decision in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra). 6 27. 6 27. In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that in respect of the issue involved i.e., whether the petitioner, while being granted the revision of pension, can be treated differently only because he stood retired prior to 01.01.2006 vis-à-vis the persons who stood retired after 01.01.2006, in the light of the subsequent decision of Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), the decision rendered by this Court in the case of P.V. Sreenivasaiah (supra) does not govern the field anymore.” He lastly submits that the said principle has been followed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioers Sangh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors ; WPS No.3602 of 2018 dated 19.02.2025 and prays to allow this Petition in the aforesaid terms. 4. On the other hand, Shri Singh submits that the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 01.01.2000 and the liability was apportioned between the two States according to the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. He further submits that Petitioner No.4 has retired on 31.12.1997 i.e. before the State has been carved out, therefore, financial liability with regard to the said Petitioner has to be borne by State of Madhya Pradesh. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and further considering the principle laid down in the matter of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta (supra), which has been followed by this Court as creation of two classes of the pensioners itself is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the State of 7 Chhattisgarh to disburse the arrears to the Petitioners within a period of 120 days from the date of passing of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is further directed that the State would be at liberty to claim the share, if any, from the State of Madhya Pradesh for making payment according to the provisions entailed in Section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. 6. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya