1 2026:CGHC:754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9160 of 2023 1 - Kunwarkant Dewangan Son Of Late Shri Makhalal Dewangan, Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Dewangan Mohalla Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Department, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief:- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to revise the pensionery benefit after considering earlier service within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case :- The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 30.08.1994 and, during the course of his service, was subsequently promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher, from which post he ultimately retired on 30.09.2021 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Prior to his appointment as Assistant Teacher, the petitioner had already rendered continuous service with Takhatpur Bunkar Sahkari Samity Maryadit, Takhatpur, from 01.11.1983 to 30.04.1993, which service was duly recognized and relevant for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the applicable rules. After retirement, although the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities failed to take into consideration the petitioner’s earlier service rendered from 01.11.1983 to 30.04.1993 while computing his qualifying service, and have erroneously reckoned his qualifying service as only 27 years, thereby depriving him of full pensionary benefits. It is the specific case of the petitioner that if his prior service is duly counted, his total qualifying service would exceed 33 years, entitling him to full pension in accordance with law. It is further 3 submitted that under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in brevity ‘Rules of 1976’), particularly Rule 12(2), the earlier service rendered by an employee, whether on a regular or temporary basis, is required to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Despite the clear mandate of the statutory rules, the respondent authorities have failed to extend the said benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner has repeatedly approached the respondents by way of representations seeking redressal of his grievance, however, the same have remained unattended and undecided, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 30.08.1994, was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Teacher, and retired on 30.09.2021. It is submitted that prior to his appointment, the petitioner had rendered service from 01.11.1983 to 30.04.1993 with Takhatpur Bunkar Sahkari Samity Maryadit, which is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits. Learned counsel contends that the respondent authorities have illegally excluded the said earlier service while calculating the petitioner’s qualifying service and have taken only 27 years into account, thereby denying him full pension, despite Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 1976 mandating inclusion of such service. It is further submitted that repeated representations made by the petitioner have not been considered, necessitating the present petition. 4 4. Learned State counsel submits that Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 1976 is applicable only to a Government servant and does not extend to an employee who has rendered service in a private or co-operative. It is contended that the petitioner’s earlier service was admittedly rendered in a Co-operative Society, which does not fall within the ambit of Government service, and therefore such service cannot be counted for the purpose of qualifying service under the Pension Rules. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of counting such non-governmental service for pensionary benefits, and consequently, the action of the respondent authorities in excluding the said period of service is legal and justified. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost care and particularly the Rule 12 of the Rules of 1976. 6. It is pertinent to refer to and quote Rule 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 12 (1) xxxxxx (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes 5 charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s service from 01.11.1983 to 30.04.1993 was rendered in Takhatpur Bunkar Sahkari Samity Maryadit, which is neither a Government department nor a Government establishment. Therefore, the said period of service cannot be treated as qualifying service under the Rules of 1976. The contention of the petitioner that Rule 12(2) mandates counting of such service is misconceived and contrary to the express language of the rule. The respondent authorities, thus, have committed no illegality or arbitrariness in excluding the said period while computing the petitioner’s qualifying service and in granting pension on the basis of service rendered by him as a Government servant alone. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena