1 2026:CGHC:21604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1875 of 2022 1 - Smt. Rukhmani Wd/o Harendra Aged About 61 Years R/o Simran City Nigam Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate along with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire Records from the office of the respondent in respect of Petitioner's claim. 10.2. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue direction for Respondent authorities to grant of family pension. 10.3 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay interest for delay payment of family pension. 10.4 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- 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that husband of the petitioner was appointed and continuously served as Class-IV employees under the respondent Municipal Corporation against regular and pensionable post, and his service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (for short, "Rules of 1968"). He would further submit that husband of the petitioner died on 23.03.2001 while he was in service, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get family pension on death of her husband. In support, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No, 3607/2021, Smt, Shakun Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, wherein direction was issued to consider and decide claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that this Court in O.P. Verma & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, has categorically held that municipal services are government services and Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules are applicable, thereby entitling the petitioners pensionary benefits. 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. 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. In view of the settled legal position and parity of facts, it is prayed that this Court 3 may be pleased to allow the petition and grant the petitioner pensionary benefits. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They submit that this petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits under the statutory pension framework relied upon by her. The respondents submit that the service conditions of husband of the petitioner were governed by a 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. The petitioner was never borne in 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 petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not create an automatic entitlement, particularly when the governing administrative policy expressly provides otherwise. 4. I have heard the learend counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. 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. -4- 6. From the material available on record, it is evident that the case of the petitioner is governed by an 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 petitioner. 7. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not lay down an absolute proposition of law that all municipal employees are entitled to pension irrespective of the governing policy or the date of retirement/death. The decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied mechanically to the present case. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right to claim pensionary benefits under the statutory framework relied upon by her. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha