1 2026:CGHC:23686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 15.04.2026 Order Delivered on : 15.06.2026 WPS No. 8417 of 2023 Ashok Jain S/o Shree Inder Chand Jain, Aged About 65 Years R/o Flat No. 104, Girnar Plaza, In Front of Patidar Bhawan, Fafadih, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur, (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary PHE, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Dist, Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Old PHQ, Raipur, Dist- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Joint Director, Treasury And Accounts And Pension, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Regional Director, Employees Provident Fund, Regional Office, Pandri, Raipur ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.15 18:43:38 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Order 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking grant of pension has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the requisite 10 years of qualifying service under the EPF Rules and, therefore, has been held not entitled to pension. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record relating to Petitioner for kind perusal for the ends of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 issued by Managing Director, CIDC. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction to the Respondent No.4 to provide details and make necessary entries in the account of Petitioner relating EPF and CPF contribution for the period 10.06.1979 to 17.10.1985.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile M.P. State Road 3 Transport Corporation on 02.06.1979 and joined his duties on 10.06.1979 at Rajnandgaon Depot, thereafter serving at various places under the department. During the course of his service, the petitioner was illegally terminated on 17.10.1985 without issuance of any notice and without conducting any departmental enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Ambikapur, registered as Case No. 32/CGIR/2013, wherein the learned Labour Court, vide order dated 24.03.2015, set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and with withholding of one increment. The said award was assailed by the respondents before the Industrial Tribunal, however, the appeal came to be dismissed, affirming the order of the Labour Court, and in compliance thereof, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 30.07.2015. 3. Subsequently, the competent authority, vide order dated 30.03.2016, treated the entire intervening period from 17.10.1985 to 30.07.2015 as continuous service for the purpose of notional increments, and necessary entries were made in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter continued in service uninterruptedly till attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2020, thus rendering long years of service under the department. After retirement, though the petitioner was paid leave encashment on 01.09.2020, the gratuity amount was initially withheld, compelling the petitioner to approach the Controlling 4 Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur in Case No. 401/PGA/2020, wherein, vide order dated 22.09.2021, the authority recognized the petitioner’s total service as 41 years and directed payment of gratuity accordingly. The said order was further affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 21.09.2022. 4. Despite the aforesaid factual position and recognition of continuous service, when the petitioner submitted representation seeking grant of pensionary benefits, the same came to be rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.06.2023 on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of qualifying service under the employer. The said rejection has been made notwithstanding the fact that the service records of the petitioner reflect completion of about 41 years of service and that contributions towards EPF were duly made during his tenure. 5. Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the same proceeds on a fundamentally erroneous premise that the petitioner has not completed the requisite qualifying service of 10 years for grant of pension. It is contended that the said finding is contrary to the admitted record, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has rendered more than 41 years of service under the department, as duly reflected in his service book. 5 6. Learned counsel further submits that once the order of termination dated 17.10.1985 was set aside by the Labour Court and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, which order has attained finality upon dismissal of the appeal by the Industrial Tribunal, the legal consequence is that the petitioner is deemed to be in continuous service for the entire intervening period. Thus, the period from 17.10.1985 to 30.07.2015 cannot be treated as a break in service for any purpose, including computation of qualifying service for pension. 7. It is further contended that the respondents themselves have acknowledged the continuity of service by granting notional increments to the petitioner for the entire intervening period and by making necessary entries in the service book. Having treated the said period as continuous for all service benefits, the respondents are now estopped from taking a contradictory stand while denying pension on the ground of non-completion of qualifying service. 8. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents have acted in a wholly inconsistent and arbitrary manner inasmuch as they have accepted the entire period of service from 1979 to 2020 as continuous for the purpose of granting gratuity, as is evident from the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, yet have denied pension on untenable grounds. Such contradictory stands adopted by the respondents 6 are impermissible in law and violate the principles of fairness and equality. 9. It is further submitted that in the absence of any independent service rules framed by the respondent Corporation, the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the rules applicable to State Government employees, particularly the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, as resolved by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 23.09.2013. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to have his entire qualifying service reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 10. Learned counsel further contends that similarly situated employees of the erstwhile State Road Transport Corporation, who were absorbed in other departments such as the Urban Administration Department, have been granted pension upon deposit of CPF/EPF contributions in terms of Government policy. Denial of similar benefit to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the requisite CPF/EPF contribution along with applicable interest in accordance with the policy. 11. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anantdeep Singh v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2024) 18 SCC 616 and Abdul Rahman Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 7526), 7 wherein it has been held that once an order of termination is set aside, the employee is deemed to be in continuous service for all consequential benefits. Further reliance has been placed on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Goverdhanlal Soni & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1789 of 2020 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Mangalram Aanwala, Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 2020, wherein entitlement to pension upon deposit of CPF has been recognized, as well as on Bhanwarlal Solanki v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, 2017 (2) MPLJ 640, which holds that in absence of specific rules, service conditions applicable to government employees shall govern. It is thus submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be held entitled to pension in accordance with law. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, opposes the petition and supports the impugned order dated 21.06.2023. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits as he has not completed the requisite qualifying service of 10 years under the applicable scheme. It is contended that the petitioner’s case is governed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and not by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and therefore, in absence of fulfillment of the statutory requirements, the claim for pension has rightly been rejected. 8 13. Learned State counsel further submits that the period from 17.10.1985 to 30.07.2015, during which the petitioner remained out of service, cannot be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He contends that the grant of notional increments for the said period does not automatically entitle the petitioner to claim pensionary benefits, as such benefits were limited in nature and do not amount to recognition of continuous qualifying service. It is also submitted that the petitioner, after absorption in the respondent Corporation, is governed by the service conditions applicable to the Corporation, and benefits granted to employees of other departments cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is thus contended that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not warrant interference by this Court. 14. Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, vehemently opposes the writ petition and supports the impugned order. She submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and, upon reorganization of the State, stood allocated to the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC). It is contended that the petitioner ultimately superannuated on 29.06.2016 upon attaining the age of 58 years, and his claim of continuation in service till 30.06.2020 is misconceived and based on an erroneous assumption of continuous service. 9 15. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had a chequered service record and was dismissed on multiple occasions due to misconduct, and the actual qualifying service rendered by him is only about 24 months. She contends that although the Labour Court, vide order dated 24.03.2015, directed reinstatement without back wages and with withholding of one increment, such reinstatement was limited in its scope and did not grant continuity of service for all purposes. The said order, having been affirmed by the Industrial Tribunal, attained finality and the petitioner did not challenge the same before any higher forum. 16. It is further submitted that the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, which is a contributory scheme. Under the said scheme, a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service with corresponding contributions is mandatory for entitlement to pension. Since no contributions were made during the period the petitioner remained out of service, particularly when reinstatement was without back wages, such period cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. 17. Learned counsel emphasizes that the grant of notional increments or hypothetical fixation of pay pursuant to the Labour Court’s order does not amount to actual service nor does it substitute the requirement of statutory contributions under the Employees’ 10 Pension Scheme, 1995. In absence of such contributions, the petitioner cannot claim pension as a matter of right by merely relying on the concept of continuity of service. 18. Placing reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in Badri Prasad Chandrakar (Died) through LRs v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (W.A. No. 971 of 2025), learned counsel submits that reinstatement does not ipso facto confer continuity of service for all purposes, especially when back wages have been denied. It is argued that in the absence of a specific direction granting continuity for pensionary benefits, the intervening period cannot be counted. 19. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner’s case is clearly distinguishable from the judgments relied upon by him, as those pertain to different service conditions and statutory frameworks. It is thus contended that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated, the impugned order is just and proper, and the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 20. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, opposes the writ petition and supports the action of the authorities in denying pension to the petitioner. He submits that the present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for pension by CIDC on the ground that he has not completed the minimum qualifying 11 service of 10 years as required under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner is misconceived and contrary to the statutory provisions governing the field. 21. Learned counsel further submits that as per the official records maintained by the Provident Fund authorities, the petitioner has rendered only a limited period of contributory service. The PF and EPS details clearly demonstrate that the petitioner’s actual service, for which contributions were made, aggregates to approximately 38 months only. The details of various PF accounts, dates of joining and exit, and the corresponding length of service unequivocally establish that the petitioner falls far short of the mandatory qualifying service required for grant of pension. 22. It is further submitted that under paragraph 12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, a member becomes entitled to superannuation pension only upon rendering eligible service of not less than 10 years. In contrast, paragraph 14 of the said Scheme specifically provides that where the member has not rendered the requisite qualifying service, he would only be entitled to withdrawal benefits or a scheme certificate, as the case may be. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner, having rendered only 38 months of contributory service, is not entitled to pension and can at best claim withdrawal benefits in accordance with law. 12 23. Learned counsel also submits that although the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the order of the Labour Court dated 24.03.2015, such reinstatement was expressly without back wages, and there was no direction for continuity of service for all purposes. Consequently, no contributions were made towards the EPF/EPS account for the intervening period from 17.10.1985 to 24.03.2015, and therefore, the said period cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under a contributory scheme. 24. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 971 of 2025 (Badri Prasad Chandrakar (Died) through LRs vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), learned counsel submits that it is a settled proposition of law that reinstatement does not ipso facto confer continuity of service for all purposes unless specifically directed. It is argued that grant of pension by treating the entire period as continuous service would amount to conferring benefits which were expressly denied by the Labour Court. 25. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned action is strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, and therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 13 26. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on their behalf. I have also carefully perused the pleadings, documents annexed thereto, and the record of the case. 27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the core issue which arises for determination is whether the petitioner, whose termination was set aside and who was subsequently reinstated in service without back wages, is entitled to have the intervening period counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension, particularly in the backdrop of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, which is admittedly a contributory scheme. 28. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1979 and that his termination dated 17.10.1985 was set aside by the Labour Court vide award dated 24.03.2015, which has attained finality. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to the said award and continued till his superannuation. The record further reveals that the department itself, vide order dated 30.03.2016, treated the intervening period as continuous for the limited purpose of grant of notional increments and made corresponding entries in the service book. Additionally, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, as well as the Appellate Authority, have 14 recognized the petitioner’s length of service as 41 years for the purpose of gratuity. 29. However, the entitlement to pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 stands on a distinct statutory footing. The said scheme is a contribution-based scheme, wherein pension is linked with the “pensionable service” and corresponding contributions made to the fund. As per paragraph 12 of the Scheme, a minimum of 10 years of eligible service is a condition precedent for grant of pension. In the present case, the material placed on record by respondent No.4 indicates that the actual contributory service of the petitioner is approximately 38 months, and there were no contributions during the intervening period from 17.10.1985 to 24.03.2015, particularly in view of the fact that reinstatement was granted without back wages. 30. The law with regard to the effect of reinstatement without back wages is fairly well settled. In Goverdhanlal Soni (supra) and Mangalram Aanwala (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized that pensionary benefits under a contributory scheme are subject to fulfillment of conditions including deposit of requisite contributions. Further, in recent pronouncements such as Anantdeep Singh (supra) and Abdul Rahman Ahmed (supra), it has been reiterated that once termination is set aside, the employee is ordinarily entitled to continuity of service; however, the extent and nature of consequential benefits would depend 15 upon the specific directions contained in the order of reinstatement and the governing statutory framework. 31. In the present case, the Labour Court while setting aside the termination has consciously denied back wages and has not expressly granted continuity of service for all purposes. The Division Bench of this Court in Badri Prasad Chandrakar (Died) through LRs. (supra) has categorically held that reinstatement does not ipso facto confer continuity of service for all purposes and that grant of benefits for the interregnum period, in absence of specific direction, would amount to extending relief which was consciously denied. The said principle squarely applies in the facts of the present case, particularly when pension under EPS, 1995 is dependent upon actual contributions. 32. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has rendered long years of association with the department and that the authorities themselves have treated the intervening period as continuous for certain limited purposes. The petitioner has also expressed willingness to deposit the requisite EPF/CPF contributions along with interest so as to bridge the gap in contributions for the relevant period. The issue, therefore, is not merely one of entitlement but also of the mechanism by which such entitlement, if otherwise permissible, can be effectuated within the framework of the statutory scheme. 16 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that outright denial of pension to the petitioner without examining the feasibility of permitting deposit of requisite contributions and without reconciling the service record, results in an inequitable situation. The impugned order dated 21.06.2023, therefore, cannot be sustained to the extent it rejects the petitioner’s claim in a mechanical manner without considering the relevant aspects noted hereinabove. 34. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P- 1) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority/Respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh. The authority shall examine : (i) the petitioner’s claim of continuous service in light of the Labour Court award and subsequent departmental orders, (ii) the applicability of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 vis-à-vis the service conditions governing the petitioner, and (iii) the possibility of permitting the petitioner to deposit the requisite employer’s and employee’s contribution, along with applicable interest, for the intervening period, in accordance with law and policy, if permissible. 35. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent authority by submitting a certified copy of this order within a period of 15 days from today. Upon such submission, the competent authority shall undertake and complete the aforesaid exercise 17 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim to pension, and the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and independent order strictly in accordance with law. 36. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 37. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 15.04.2026 15.06.2026 ------ 15.06.2026