1 2025:CGHC:61003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3669 of 2023 1 - Umashankar Pali Son Of Juthelram Pali Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Village - Padaria, Post - Takhatpur, Police Station - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, Division, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Goutam Khetarpal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. The instant writ petition is being preferred against the arbitrary action on the part of respondent authorities in not extending the benefits of old pension scheme in favour of petitioner. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to release pension to the petitioner by extending the benefits of old pension scheme as opted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on 31.08.1998 and, having discharged his duties without any stigma, his services were regularized on 29.05.2002; thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I/Lecturer (Panchayat) on 26.05.2008 and subsequently transferred on 29.08.2012 to Government High School, Semarchuwa, Block-Mungeli, wherefrom pensionary contributions were regularly deducted from 3 his salary. Pursuant to the State Government policy, the petitioner’s services were absorbed in the respondent No.1 department on the post of Lecturer (L.B.) by order dated 28.09.2018 with effect from 01.07.2018, and upon attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.04.2023; however, despite repeated representations, pensionary benefits have not been granted on the ground that his qualifying service is being reckoned only from the date of absorption. It is submitted that the petitioner had opted for the old pension scheme as applicable and, if his entire continuous service from the initial appointment is considered, he fulfills the requirement of minimum qualifying service of ten years, and therefore the denial of pension by the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the denial of pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law, despite the fact that pension contributions were admittedly deducted from the petitioner’s salary since 2012. The petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in the Panchayat Department and, pursuant to the circular dated 28.09.2018, his services were absorbed in the School Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018. The petitioner’s service is continuous and uninterrupted from the date of initial appointment and cannot be reckoned only from the date of absorption to defeat his legitimate claim to pension. Having exercised the option under the old pension scheme and having 4 completed the requisite qualifying service, the refusal to grant pension on a hyper-technical interpretation is unjust and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2023 and is therefore entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that in order to be entitled to pensionary benefits, an employee is required to complete a minimum qualifying service of ten years. In the present case, the petitioner has rendered only four years and eight months of service in the School Education Department. As such, the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualifying service and is therefore not entitled to grant of pensionary benefits. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record and the pleadings and further considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter. It appears that as per the Pension Rules, 1976, a government servant has to render his services minimum for a period fo 08 years for becoming eligible for the benefit of pension and gratuity and until and unless, he / she completes the said qualifying services, he / she would not be eligible for the benefit of pension and gratuity in any manner. As such, the prayer for grant of pension to the petitioner cannot be allowed. However, as per the petition, he has deposited his part of 5 contribution for grant of pension as such, as prayed, he is granted liberty to raise this issue before the respondent concerned for refund of amount. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the erstwhile employer, i.e., the Panchayat Department, for refund/release of the amount deposited by him towards pension. Such application shall be filed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Upon receipt of such application, the concerned department is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, and if the facts are found to be proved, the amount deposited by the petitioner shall be released within a further period of sixty days thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha