1 2025:CGHC:57091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8928 of 2023 1 - Noman Prasad Kurre S/o Lulu Das Kurre Aged About 63 Years R/o Karesara Tahsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahtralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : - “10.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire Records from the office of the respondents in respect of Petitioners claim. 10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the previous service rendered in Panchayat Department as qualifying service and count the pension from date of initial appointment and pay balance amount with suitable interest. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.3 That, any other Writ, order directions or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Shiksha Karmi by the Janpad Panchayat Mungeli on 18.10.1995 under the Panchayat Department. Later, on 18.03.1999, the petitioner was selected for Shiksha Karmi Grade 03, as indicated in the order dated 18.03.1999, where the petitioner’s name appeared as S.N. 201. Following this, the petitioner’s service was regularized by the Janpad Panchayat Mungeli on 23.07.2002, with the petitioner’s name appearing as S.N. 76 in the order. The petitioner was posted to the Government Primary School in Chamari, district Mungeli. In line with a State policy issued by Chhattisgarh on 30.06.2018 for the absorption of Shiksha Karmi employees who had completed 8 years of service, the petitioner was absorbed into the School Education Department on 10.08.2018. This was formalized by an order from the Zila Panchayat Mungeli, in which the petitioner’s name appeared as S.N. 73, and the petitioner was given the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). The petitioner’s service was thus absorbed into a regular, pensionable post. Further, on 10.10.2022, the petitioner was promoted from Assistant Teacher (LB) to Head Master of the Government Primary School Chamari, District Mungeli, as per the promotion policy issued by the state of Chhattisgarh on 06.01.2022. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2023 after reaching the age of superannuation, holding a regular pensionable post, with no pending complaints or inquiries against them at the time of retirement. However, after retirement, the petitioner was granted a contributory pension, but the period of service rendered in 3 the Panchayat Department and earlier stages of employment was not considered as qualifying service for pension purposes. Despite having served for over 23 years, including as a Shiksha Karmi and later in a pensionable post, the petitioner’s previous service was not counted toward pension eligibility. This decision was made in contradiction to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, specifically Rule 15-A, which states that the service rendered as a contractual employee, once absorbed into a regular pensionable post, should be counted toward qualifying service for pension purposes. The petitioner contends that their prior service in the Panchayat Department should have been considered as qualifying service, as per established service jurisprudence, therefore, the petitioner argues that they are entitled to have their full service counted toward pension and seeks redress for this grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-grant of regular pension to the petitioner by the respondent authority is arbitrary and violative of the established pension rules, specifically the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is contended that the petitioner was duly appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi by the Janpad Panchayat Mungeli on 18.10.1995, and later promoted to Shiksha Karmi Grade 03 in the order dated 18.03.1999. Following this, the petitioner’s services were regularized by the respondent authority on 23.07.2002, and the petitioner was posted to the Government Primary School Chamari in District Mungeli. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner’s service was absorbed into the School Education Department on 10.08.2018, through a formal order issued by the Zila 4 Panchayat Mungeli. At this point, the petitioner was absorbed into a regular, pensionable post as an Assistant Teacher, in accordance with the state policy for absorption of Shiksha Karmi employees who had completed 8 years of service. It is the petitioner’s submission that upon absorption into a pensionable post, the petitioner became entitled to regular pension benefits. The counsel emphasizes that the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, which apply to employees absorbed into regular pensionable posts, clearly stipulate that the period of service rendered by a contractual or temporary employee in a previous department must be counted as qualifying service for pension purposes, once absorbed into a pensionable position. In this case, the petitioner had served for over 23 years, including in a pensionable capacity after regularization. There was no break in service between the petitioner’s earlier service in the Panchayat Department and their subsequent regularization and absorption into the School Education Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that given the continuous nature of the petitioner’s service and the fact that the petitioner retired from a regular pensionable post, the respondent authority’s refusal to grant the petitioner regular pension is unjustified and contrary to the pension rules. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have their entire period of service, including the time served in the Panchayat Department, counted as qualifying service for the purpose of granting regular pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 2001 (2) MPLJ 333. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that prior to absorption of petitioner into the School Education Department, 5 petitioner was serving in the Panchayat Department as a Shiksha Karmi, a position that, under the applicable rules, does not qualify for pension benefits as it was not a pensionable post. It is further submitted that while the petitioner was subsequently absorbed into the School Education Department and placed in a regular pensionable post, the service rendered by the petitioner in the Panchayat Department, prior to absorption, cannot be considered for pension purposes. The learned State counsel asserts that the period of service in the non-pensionable post of Shiksha Karmi does not qualify for pension benefits, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have that period counted as qualifying service for the grant of a pension. Consequently, the learned State counsel respondent maintains that the decision to grant the petitioner contributory pension, based only on his service in the School Education Department, is in accordance with the relevant rules. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with the petition with atmost circumspection. 6. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the petitioner has served for a substantial period, first in the Panchayat Department and then in the School Education Department. The petitioner’s service in the Panchayat Department commenced on 18.10.1995 when he was appointed as a Shiksha Karmi. He was later promoted to Shiksha Karmi Grade 03 on 18.03.1999, and his services were regularized on 23.07.2002. The total service rendered by the petitioner in the Panchayat Department amounts to 22 years. In accordance with the State policy issued by the Chhattisgarh Government, the petitioner was 6 absorbed into the School Education Department on 10.08.2018 after completing over 8 years of service as a Shiksha Karmi, which was regularized in 2002. The absorption order was issued by the Zila Panchayat Mungeli, and the petitioner was appointed to a regular, pensionable post as an Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). On 10.10.2022, the petitioner was further promoted to the position of Head Master in a regular, pensionable capacity. It is undisputed that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2023 after reaching the age of superannuation while holding a regular, pensionable post. 7. The main grievance raised by petitioner is that the service rendered by him in the Panchayat Department, prior to his absorption into the School Education Department in 2018, has not been considered for pension purposes. Upon careful examination of the records, this Court notes that the service of petitioner in the Panchayat Department, though in a non-pensionable post, was continuous for a period of 22 years. The petitioner’s subsequent absorption into a regular pensionable post in the School Education Department was a natural progression, in accordance with the policies of the state, which specifically provided for the absorption of Shiksha Karmi employees who had served for over 8 years in the Panchayat Department. The petitioner was eventually promoted to a higher post in a pensionable capacity. 8. 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 7 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, if the petitioner has deposited 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. 9. 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. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE