1 2026:CGHC:22523-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 438 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Saroj Verma W/o Late Dr. Ramkumar Verma Aged About 82 Years R/o B/289, Kranti Nagar Behind Hanuman Temple, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaguri, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 10:35:09 +0530 2 13.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State as well as Ms. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 20.01.2026 (Smt. Saroj Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 592 of 2026, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the present writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 592 of 2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner came to be disposed of with a direction to the appellant authorities to process the claim of the respondent for grant of pension and gratuity on the basis of revised pay-scale applicable on the date of retirement, in light of the decisions rendered in WA No. 111/2022 3 and WPS No. 407/2005, along with consequential benefits including arrears. The respondent/writ petitioner had approached the Court contending that her deceased husband, who retired from service as a Professor from an aided non-governmental college, was entitled to pensionary benefits on the basis of revised pay-scale and that despite representations, the same had not been granted. The appellants, however, contended that the husband of the respondent was not a government servant but an employee of a private aided institution and, therefore, was not governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and that the pension scheme applicable to such employees was a self-financed scheme introduced by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1992, under which pension was payable only from the contributory provident fund corpus created by the employer’s contribution, without any financial liability upon the State. It was further the stand of the appellants that the benefit of 5th Pay Commission for pensionary purposes was not applicable as a matter of right to employees of private aided colleges and that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches, since the respondent’s husband had retired long back and had accepted pension under the existing scheme without raising any grievance for several years. Aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the respondent’s claim in light of earlier decisions, the present writ appeal has been filed by the State authorities. 4 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law and on facts, as the writ petition itself suffered from gross delay and laches, having been filed after about 26 years from the date of retirement of the respondent’s husband, without any plausible explanation, and therefore no discretionary relief ought to have been granted. It is contended that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without affording adequate opportunity to the appellants to file a detailed reply and failed to appreciate that the respondent’s husband was an employee of a private aided college and not a government servant, and therefore was not governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Learned counsel submits that the pensionary benefits available to employees of private aided colleges were regulated exclusively by a self-financed scheme introduced by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Government in the year 1992, under which pension was payable only from the corpus created out of employer contribution towards the contributory provident fund, and the State Government had expressly clarified through subsequent circulars issued in the years 1992, 2001 and thereafter that no additional financial liability for pension, gratuity or family pension would be borne by the State. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge erred in directing consideration of pension on revised pay-scales by overlooking that the respondent had never challenged the validity 5 of the governing circulars or the scheme itself, and in absence of such challenge, no relief contrary to the scheme could have been granted. It is submitted that the benefit extended by order dated 12.10.2010 was only a one-time benevolent measure to ensure minimum pension corresponding to 5th Pay Commission and did not create any continuing entitlement to revised pension under subsequent pay revisions such as 6th or 7th Pay Commission. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent’s husband had already accepted the benefits under the CPF-based pension scheme and had acquiesced to the same throughout his lifetime, and therefore the respondent cannot, after decades, claim parity with government employees. It is thus contended that the impugned order is contrary to the record, overlooks the statutory and policy framework governing aided private college employees, and imposes an unwarranted financial liability upon the State. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 6 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by observing that the issue involved therein had already been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in earlier matters, including WA No. 111/2022 and WP No. 407/2005, wherein similarly situated persons were granted relief and the appeal preferred thereagainst had also been dismissed. Proceeding on the said premise, the learned Single Judge, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the same with liberty to the writ petitioner to submit a representation along with copies of the orders passed in the aforesaid cases before respondent authorities within a period of 30 days, and directed the authorities to consider and decide such representation within a further period of 120 days from the date of its submission. The learned Single Judge further observed that the said direction would remain subject to any order that may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet