1 2026:CGHC:22274-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2596 of 2025 Smt. Sheela Agrawal W/o Late Justice Shri K.M. Agrawal Aged About 77 Years Retd. Chief Lokayukt, C.G. Lok Ayog, R/o House No. 305, Nearby Bakshi Dental Clinic, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Accountant General (A & E) Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Union Bank 329, Samta Colony, Near Shikarpuri Dharamshala, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)- 492001 ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Agrawal and Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocates. For Respondent/State Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 2 Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati 2 Agrawal and Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 1/State, Mr. Ashwani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Accountant General as well as Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Bank. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that cut of date fixed as 21.08.2024 in Annexure P/2 is illegal without authority and having no nexus with either Lokayukt Adhiniyam 2002 & Chhattisgarh Pramukh Lokayukt and Lokayukt (Seva Ki Shartien) Niyam 2008, the respondent has not seen amended portion in which date of death of Pramukh Lokayukt has been mentioned in amendment, therefore it ought to have been fixed as cut of date from "04.12.2015" instead of 21.08.2024. 10.2. That, the respondent be directed to pay the arrears of family pension from 04.12.2015 till 21.08.2024 together with 18% interest, if no family pension has been paid after 21.08.2024, then till payment it be released with interest at the rate of 18% @ per annum till payment. 10.3. That, cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner from respondent. 10.4. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 3. The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the wife of a retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim. After his superannuation, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Chief Lok Ayukt, Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog. The husband of the petitioner used to get pension in his lifetime after superannuation. The petitioner was getting pension even after the death of her husband. However, later, all of 3 a sudden, the respondent No. 3-Bank asked the petitioner vide its letter dated 31.01.2019 to return the pension which was credited in her account amounting to Rs.12,67,871/-. The petitioner duly returned back the amount to the Bank by way of demand draft on 05.03.2019. 4. According to Mr. H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WPS No. 794/2021 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the vires of the Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Pramukh Lokayukt Evam Lokayukt (Sewa Ki Shartein) Niyam, 2008 (for short, the Rules of 2008). In the said writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant family pension to her. 5. Mr. Agrawal further submits that the petitioner seeks to challenge the vires of the Rules of 2008 on the ground that the alleged cut off date fixed for grant of family pension is illegal and arbitrary in nature and without any authority because there is no nexus either with the Chhattisgarh Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short, the Act of 2002) or the Rules of 2008 and further the word ‘death of Pramukh Lokayukt’ has been mentioned in the amended Rule 11 of the Rules of 2008 and no reasoning has been given. The cut of date fixed in notification (Annexure P/2) as 21.08.2024 is illegal without authority and has no nexus either with Act of 2002 or the Rules of 2008. The word death of ‘Pramukh Lokayukt’ has been mentioned in amended Rule 11, and the date of death of Pramukh Lokayukt in this case is 04.12.2015, therefore it is liable to be changed from "21.08.2024 to 04.12.2015" and it be held that cut of date fixed as 21.08.2024 is illegal since no reasoning has been given for putting in the amendment, therefore be quashed. 4 6. On the other hand, Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the entire petition as framed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the count that the petitioner per se, do not have any right to challenge the Rules, 2008 which have been framed, while exercising the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 17 read with sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act of 2002. The petitioner, apart from having her individual grievance and deprivation on the count of fixation of cut of date for grant of family pension in the Rules, 2008 has made an attempt to challenge the impugned Rules, 2008 which cannot be sustained as it is settled law that, individual hardship cannot be called for in challenging the legislation as well as Rules framed thereunder, which otherwise have been framed, while exercising the power conferred on it. The vires of any rules /legislation is checked on the ground of constitutionality and not on the ground of personal discomfort. The vires of any act can be challenged only on the grounds that (i) when the rule maker lacks the legislative competence; (ii) when it is made in excess of the power conferred by the enabling of parent Act, (iii) when delegated legislation is conflict with the enabling of parent Act, and (iv) when whole legislation or part of it is against the provision of Constitution of India or any other law prevailing/existing on the field. None of the above-mentioned conditions are available to the petitioners for challenge. An act to make provisions for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the inquiry into specific information of misconduct or complaint against public servants and for the matters connected therewith, has been enacted in the name and style of the Act of 2002. Section 4 of the Act, 2002 deals with the term of the ofÏce of members and other conditions of service. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 2002 prescribes the allowances and pension payable to and other 5 conditions of service of Pramukh Lokayukt and Lokayukt. Section 17 of the Act, 2002 deals with the powers to make rules and according to which the State Government may, by notification, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. 2002. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 17 read with sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 2002, the State Government has enacted the rules known as the Rules of 2008. The same has duly been notified in the ofÏcial gazette of State of Chhattisgarh on 05.08.2008. Τhereafter, various amendments have taken place from time to time by way of gazette notification.. On 22.05.2009, Rule 9 to Rule 20 were added to Rules of 2008. A bare perusal of provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act, 2002 would clearly reveal that the State Government is duly empowered and vested with the powers to frame the rules for regulating conditions of services of the Pramukh Lokayukta and Lokayukta. Thus, it appears that the State Government has power and authority to frame such rules for regulating the condition of conditions of services of the Pramukh Lokayukta and Lokayukta and in exercise of the said power vested and conferred under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, the State Government has enacted the Rules, 2008. The amendments were carried out in the Rules, 2008 from time to time looking to the prevailing circumstances and vide notification dated 22/05/2009, alongwith other provisions, the provision of pension payable to Pramukh Lokayukt was inserted and according to which, the Pramukh Lokayukt shall be paid pension at the rates applicable to the judicial post which the Pramukh Lokayukt was holding just before joining his post, for each completed year of rendering services as Pramukh Lokayukt. A bare perusal of this Notification dated 22.05.2009 would clearly demonstrate that through the said notification, the State Government, being the benevolent State, has 6 provided the scheme of pension payable to the Pramukh Lokayukt. 7. Mr. Bhaduri further submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid scheme of pension payable to the Pramukh Lokayukt, the husband of the petitioner who was appointed as Chief Lokayukta in the State of Chhattisgarh, was extended the benefit of pension till his death by the State and the same was duly received without any objection and demur. Vide impugned notification dated 04.10.2024, amendments were again carried out in the Rules, 2008 more particularly Rule 11 and by way of the amendment, the provision of family pension has been inserted to be extended to the family pensioner entitled to receive the pension, in case of death of the Pramukh Lokayukt and the said provision has been made applicable with retrospective effect from the date of 21.08.2024. The said welfare provisions have been made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 17(1) read with Section 4(6) of the Act, 2002 after considering the valuable services provided by the person like the husband of the petitioner as Pramukh Lokayukt in the State of Chhattisgarh which cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary in any manner. There is no dispute with regard to the legislative competence or any jurisdictional challenge in the instant petition. The bone of the contention of petitioner revolves around the fact that she is in disadvantageous position with respect to the amendment in Rule 11 of the Rules, 2008 under challenge as she is deprived of getting the benefit of family pension in lieu of the death of her husband, who was a retired Chief Justice of High Court of Sikkim and thereafter was appointed as Chief Lokayukt in the State of Chhattisgarh under the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002. It is settled position of law that a statutory rule / legislation can only be challenged on the limited grounds permissible under the law. There is always a presumption in favour of the 7 constitutionality of any enactment. No declaration to legislative enactment could be made as unconstitutional and void solely on account of unjust and harsh provisions or because it is apprehended to violate some right of the citizen, unless, it can be shown that such provision in-fact prohibits the rights as guaranteed or protected by the Constitution. The presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of legislation and the burden is always upon the person who attacks it to show that it is invalid and it has to be specifically established that the Rule under challenge is of such nature that no prudent man can accept legality of the same being highly arbitrary or unreasonable. The petitioner has failed to take any such ground, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is settled position that the determination and fixation of service benefits like pension, family pension etc. either retrospective effect or prospective effect for a particular post is within the exclusive domain of the State Government as the same is entirely a policy decision having financial repercussion on the public exchequer. Merely because the respondent has fixed the cut off date as 21/08/2024 for the benefit of family pension to the dependent of the pensioner, is not at all arbitrary. In other words, merely because any criteria, which does not suit any candidate cannot be said to be ultra vires for the reason that it excludes some of the candidates. The petitioner cannot dictate the terms and conditions and also cannot dictate to say that the employer should fix the eligibility criteria by giving retrospective effect as per choice and will of the applicant like the petitioner so as to facilitate selection of the particular aspiring candidate for a particular benefit, which is not at all permissible under law. The service benefit like pension, family pension etc. is an incidence of service and the government / employer is free to take appropriate decision based upon the attending circumstances from 8 time to time. The right to claim service benefit like pension, family pension etc. is only under the enabling rules and terms of employment and not otherwise. Even as per the entire pleadings and submissions of the petitioner, it nowhere reflects that any vested right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the amendment made in Rule 11 of Rules of 2013. Framing of policy / Act / Rules / directives is the prerogative and exclusive domain of the State Government. Any policy / Rules / Act/ directives could not be challenged or said to be wrong merely because implementation of it results in inconvenience or financial loss to certain particular persons. The policy / Rules / Act/directives could be challenged or said to be illegal only on the ground that same is unreasonable and results in inconvenience to public in general. No such case is being made out in the present petition by the petitioner. The petitioner has completely failed to show as to how the Rules of 2008 Rule 11 are unreasonable. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Ashwani Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/Accountant General submits that the rules have been amended/framed by the State Government and the Accountant General ofÏce is the authority which calculates and disburses the pension payable to any person as per the directions of the State, and in this case, the State alone would be the contesting party. 9. Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Bank submits that the respondent Bank has no authority whatsoever to determine the entitlement of any claimant to family pension, the eligibility of beneficiaries, or the applicability and interpretation of amended rules, including fixation of any cut-off date. Such determinations fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent pension sanctioning authority. The 9 Bank, being only a disbursing agency, is strictly bound to act in accordance with the Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued by the OfÏce of the Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh. The Bank cannot travel beyond the contents of the PPO or assume any adjudicatory role in matters relating to pensionary benefits. Any deviation from the instructions contained in the PPO would be contrary to established statutory norms governing pension disbursement and would expose the Bank to regulatory and legal consequences. The PPO forwarded to the respondent Bank on 01.05.2010 by the OfÏce of the Accountant General (A&E), Chhattisgarh did not contain any provision whatsoever for grant of family pension. The specific column pertaining to family pension in the said PPO was expressly marked as "Not Applicable (N/A)" In the absence of any authorization or direction from the competent authority, the respondent Bank was legally restrained from initiating or disbursing any family pension to the petitioner. The Bank could not have acted beyond the express terms of the PPO, as the same would have been contrary to the prescribed pension disbursement procedure. Upon receiving intimation from the petitioner regarding the demise of the pensioner, the matter was duly placed before the audit/competent authority with regard to the excess/irregular credit of pension after the death of the pensioner. Acting strictly in compliance with the directions issued by the said authority, the Bank proceeded in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner refunded the amount in question, which was duly processed by the Bank as per applicable norms. It is submitted that the Bank had no independent role in determining either the liability or the quantum of recovery; it merely acted as a facilitator in implementing the directions issued by the competent authority. Upon the petitioner applying for grant of family 10 pension, the respondent Bank duly informed and requested the petitioner to furnish the requisite authorization documents, namely a revised or corrigendum PPO or a specific authorization issued by the competent pension sanctioning authority, establishing her entitlement to family pension. In the absence of such authorization from the competent authority, the Bank was not in a position to process or disburse any family pension to the petitioner, as it is strictly bound by the terms and conditions of the PPO and cannot act beyond the same. The challenge raised in the present writ petition with regard to the Notification dated 04.10.2024, the fixation of cut-off date as 21.08.2024, and the interpretation of amended Rule 11 pertains entirely to policy decisions taken by the State Government and the competent statutory authorities. The respondent Bank has no role whatsoever in the framing of such rules, nor does it possess any authority to interpret, modify, or alter the same. It is further submitted that no obligation can be fastened upon the Bank based on such policy decisions unless and until a revised or corrigendum Pension Payment Order (PPO) is issued by the competent authority authorizing disbursement in accordance with such changes. The respondent Bank has acted strictly in accordance with the PPO, in due compliance with the instructions issued by the OfÏce of the Accountant General, and within the framework of applicable RBI and Government guidelines governing pension disbursement. At no point has the Bank acted beyond its prescribed mandate or in deviation of established procedure. Accordingly, there is neither any illegality nor arbitrariness, nor any deficiency in service attributable to the answering respondent Bank. Hence, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed qua the respondent Bank. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the 11 pleadings and materials available on record. 11. Undisputedly, the husband of the petitioner expired on 04.12.2015. At the relevant point of time, there was no provision under the Rules of 2008 providing for grant of family pension to the widow/family member of a deceased Pramukh Lokayukt. The provision relating to family pension came to be introduced only by virtue of notification dated 04.10.2024 whereby Rule 11 was amended and the said amendment was specifically made effective retrospectively from 21.08.2024. 12. The principal challenge made by the petitioner is to the fixation of the cut- off date. However, it is well settled that fixation of a cut-off date for extending service or pensionary benefits falls within the domain of policy decision of the State and unless such cut-off date is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of constitutional provisions, the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 13. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the State lacked legislative competence to frame the Rules or to amend the same. Neither has any material been placed to establish that the amended Rule 11 is contrary to the parent Act or violative of any constitutional mandate. Merely because the petitioner seeks extension of the benefit from an earlier date i.e. from the date of death of her husband, the same by itself cannot be a ground to declare the cut-off date illegal or arbitrary. 14. It is also pertinent to note that the right to claim pension or family pension is not an inherent right but flows from the statutory rules governing the field. Since admittedly no provision for family pension existed prior to amendment dated 04.10.2024, the petitioner cannot claim such benefit 12 for the period prior to the date from which the Rule has been made operative by the State Government. 15. At the same time, since the amended Rule 11 provides for grant of family pension with effect from 21.08.2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be deprived of consideration of her claim in accordance with the amended provision. 16. Accordingly, while declining the challenge made to the validity of the cut- off date fixed under the notification dated 04.10.2024 and rejecting the relief sought for grant of family pension from 04.12.2015, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit an appropriate representation/application before the competent authority seeking grant of family pension in terms of amended Rule 11 of the Rules of 2008 with effect from the date the amendment has been made applicable i.e. 21.08.2024. In the event such representation/application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. Needless to state that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be rightful by the competent authority, she shall be entitled to arrears of family pension that would accrue to her from 21.08.2024. 17. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.05.13 11:22:53 +0530