1 2025:CGHC:60378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8772 of 2022 1 - Smt. Kunti Bai W/o Shri Udhobo Aged About 72 Years R/o Khalbada, Gudiyari Raipur, Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Admistretion Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Mantralaya, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2660 of 2023 1 - Smt. Amita Bharti Widow Of Late Shri Narayan Aged About 46 Years R/o Tikrapara Sweeper Colony Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Admistration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 WPS No. 1114 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sandhya Sendre Wd/o Late Shri Bhaiya Lal Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhathagaon B.S.U.P. Colony Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1191 of 2023 1 - Kala Bai W/o Shri Late Gore Lal Aged About 52 Years R/o Kalibadi Nehru Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate & Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate for the respective petitioners. For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate and Ms. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate for their respective respondents. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11.12.2025 3 1. The present batch of petitions raises a common question of law and fact relating to the entitlement of the petitioners to pensionary benefits, and therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts of the case :- The petitioners were appointed and continuously served as Class-IV employees in the respondent Municipal Corporation against regular and pensionable posts, and their service conditions were governed by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (for short, “Rules of 1968”); subsequently, the State Government framed the M.P. Municipal Services (Pension) Rules, 1980 (for short, “Rules of 1980”), granting them retrospective effect from 01.04.1970, thereby entitling municipal employees, including the petitioners, to pensionary benefits, apart from the applicability of the M.P. New Pension Rules, 1951, which were also extended from the year 1970 and conferred a similar entitlement. The petitioners, having rendered more than 30 years of continuous and regular service, retired on attaining the age of superannuation from pensionable posts and are thus legally entitled to pension; however, despite making repeated representations, their claims were not considered by the respondent authorities. Consequently, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petitions, which were disposed of with a direction to decide their claims within a stipulated period of two months from the date of receipt of the order; in compliance 4 thereof, the petitioners submitted representations along with copies of the said orders, yet the respondent authorities rejected their claims arbitrarily and without assigning any sustainable or cogent reasons, thereby compelling the petitioners to institute the present petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners respectfully submits that petitioner in WPS No.8772 of 2022 was appointed as a Safai Karmchari on 07.08.1980 and retired on 30.06.2010 upon completion of more than 30 years of continuous service, whereas the husband of petitioner in WPS No.1114 of 2023 was appointed on 01.12.1981 and died in harness on 26.04.2011; similarly, the husband of petitioner in WPS No.1191 of 2023 was appointed on 11.01.1986 and died on 07.02.2008, and the husband of petitioner in WPS No.2660 of 2023 was appointed in the year 1981 and died on 12.11.2005. Since a common question relating to the grant of pensionary benefits arises in all the cases, the submissions are being advanced collectively. The petitioners sought pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules, 1951; however, their claims were rejected vide impugned order (Annexure P-1). The said rejection has been assailed on the ground that the pensionable service, as defined under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, is applicable to municipal employees, yet despite earlier directions issued by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents failed to grant the relief. The respondents, in their reply, have contended that only the 5 administrative order dated 28.12.2010 is applicable to the petitioners, ignoring the binding judgment of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 3607/2021, Smt. Shakun Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, wherein it was directed that the claim for pension be considered and decided within two months (Annexure A-1). It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in O.P. Verma & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, has categorically held that municipal services are government services and that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules are applicable, thereby entitling the petitioners to pensionary benefits (Annexure A-2). The reliance placed by the respondents on the administrative order dated 28.12.2010 is wholly misconceived, as administrative instructions cannot override or substitute statutory provisions, a principle reaffirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and reported in (2024) Live Law (CH) 26 (Annexure A-3). Furthermore, in Writ Appeal No. 299/2024, Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Smt. Savitri, the Division Bench, after considering all relevant facts and resolutions of the Municipal Corporation, has conclusively held that similarly situated employees are entitled to pensionary benefits (Annexure A-4). In view of the settled legal position and parity of facts, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the petitions and grant the petitioners the pensionary benefits to which they are legally entitled, in the interest of justice. 6 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, as the petitioners are not entitled to pensionary benefits under the statutory pension framework relied upon by them. The respondents submit that the service conditions of the petitioners were governed by the specific administrative order dated 28.12.2010, which clearly regulates the grant of retiral benefits to municipal employees and excludes the applicability of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules and the Pension Rules, 1951 in their cases. The petitioners were never borne on a pensionable cadre as defined under the relevant statutory rules, and mere length of service does not ipso facto confer a right to pension. It is further contended that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and do not create an automatic entitlement, particularly when the governing administrative policy expressly provides otherwise. The respondent authorities have duly considered the representations of the petitioners in accordance with the prevailing policy and passed reasoned orders, leaving no scope for judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitions being misconceived and contrary to the applicable service regulations deserve to be rejected in limine. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost care. 7 6. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds substantial force in the contentions advanced by the respondents. 7. It is a settled principle of law that pension is not a bounty, but at the same time, it is equally well-settled that entitlement to pension must flow from the governing statutory rules or a valid policy decision. Mere length of service does not ipso facto confer a right to pension unless the employee is borne on a pensionable establishment. 8. From the material available on record, it is evident that the cases of the petitioners are governed by the administrative order dated 28.12.2010, which specifically regulates the grant of retiral benefits to municipal employees and does not extend the applicability of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules or the Pension Rules, 1951 to employees like the petitioners. More importantly, the undisputed factual position reveals that the petitioners retired or died prior to the coming into force of the said policy. Consequently, they do not fall within the ambit or scope of the policy, and no vested or accrued right can be claimed thereunder. 9. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not lay down an absolute proposition that all municipal employees are entitled to pension irrespective of the governing policy or the date of retirement/death. The said decisions are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied mechanically to the present cases. This 8 Court also finds that the respondent authorities have considered the representations of the petitioners and passed reasoned orders, which do not suffer from arbitrariness, illegality, or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal right to claim pensionary benefits under the statutory framework relied upon by them. 11. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna