1 2026:CGHC:24355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3689 of 2023 1 - Mohan Lal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Gannu Lal Dewangan Aged About 66 Years R/o Room No. C/13, Near Samudayik Bhawan, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Employees Provident Fund Organization Through - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Raipur, Chhattisgarh Block-D, Scheme 32 Indira Gandhi Vyavasayik Parisar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh-492004 4 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sirgitti, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. SP Kale, Advocate For State/Resp. Nos. 1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Adv. General with Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.06.19 10:55:38 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 17/06/2026 1. With the consent of both parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his claim for refund of his Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) contribution amounting to Rs.3,82,294/- has been rejected vide impugned order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-1). 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was an erstwhile employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPSRTC’). After formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, his services were allocated to the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short ‘CIDC’). Subsequently, his services were merged with the Urban Administration & Development Department under respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 30.01.2016. The petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2018. Thereafter, he submitted an application seeking refund of his EPF contribution amounting to Rs.3,82,294/-, which was rejected by respondent Nos.1 & 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was originally an employee of erstwhile MPSRTC and thereafter of CIDC, his service was ultimately merged with the Urban Administration and Development Department. He further submits that the petitioner is presently receiving a monthly pension of Rs.28,450/-. However, there is no provision under the applicable Pension Rules authorizing the retention of the employees’ contribution deposited under the Employees’ Provident Funds and 3 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as a condition for grant of pension. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) be quashed and respondent Nos.1 & 2 be directed to refund the petitioner’s EPF contribution. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-10 (colly.) at pages 27 to 29, issued by the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development Department, Chhattisgarh Raipur, whereby an amount of Rs.3,67,922/-, representing the employees’ contribution of one Umashankar Yadav, was refunded to him through a cheque dated 27.08.2018. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel referring to its written/additional reply would submit that vide order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P- 3), the State Government specifically directed that the erstwhile employees of MPSRTC who were allocated to CIDC after the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh would be entitled to pensionary benefits only upon depositing their Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) contribution along with interest at the rate of 4% with the Director, Controller of Pension, Raipur. He further submitted that after the retirement of the petitioner, he has been granted a monthly pension of Rs.28,450/- as both the employer’s and employee’s contributions, aggregating to Rs.9,85,817/-, were deposited by respondent No. 3 with the Pension Fund of the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development Department on 28.01.2019. Learned counsel further submits that since pensionary benefits have been extended to the erstwhile employees of MP/CG SRTC, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of his EPF contribution. He also submits that even assuming that the 4 petitioner was a member of the EPF Scheme and not the CPF Scheme, he would still not be entitled to refund of the EPF contribution amount in view of the Government order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-3) granting pensionary benefits to such employees. It is further submitted that the refund granted to Umashankar Yadav appears to have been made inadvertently or by mistake, as reflected from the note-sheet forming part of Annexure P-10 (Page Nos.27 to 29). 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that since respondent No.3 has already deposited the entire contribution, comprising both the employer’s and employee’s shares, with the Directorate Urban Administration and Development Department (Pension Fund), therefore it has nothing to do in the matter and nothing survives against it in the present writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner was an erstwhile employee of MP/CG SRTC and after formation of the State of CG, his service was allocated to CIDC. Subsequently, his service was merged with the Urban Administration and Development Department on 30.01.2016, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also undisputed that, being an employee of MP/CG SRT and thereafter CIDC, the petitioner was not originally entitled to get pension under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 9. Vide order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure-P/3), additional pensionary benefits were granted to the employees of MP/CG SRTC. The said order stipulated that the service period of aforesaid employees 5 would be counted for pensionary benefits only upon deposit of the CPF contribution already received by them along with interest at the rate of 4%, with the Director, Controller of Pension, Raipur. It is also not disputed that respondent No.3 has deposited both the employer’s & employee’s contributions with the respondent- Department. In this regard, the order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-3) is reproduced below :- छत्तीसगढ़ शासन नगरीय प्रशासन एवं विवंकास विवंभाग मंत्रालय मंहानदी भावंन , नय रीयपुरी // आदीशा // नय रीयपुरी, दिदीनका 18 मंई, 2018 क्रमंका एफ 4-19 / 2015 / 18 :: राज्य शासन एतद्‌द्वारा मा० उच्च न्ययलय बिलसपुरा मा द्यरा रिराट बिपुटिटशान (एस.) क्र. 1795 / 2018 श्री राके शा वमा" बिवरूद्ध नगरा पुलिलके बिनगमा, बिलसपुरा एव' अन्य मा पुरिरात बिनर्ण"य टिद्न'के 11.04.2018 के पुरिराप्रे क्ष्य मा स.आई.डी. स के बिवभाग मा स'बिवलिलयन हो1 चुके केमा"चुरा जो1 वत"मान मा केय"रात हो4 अथव स वबिनव6त्त हो1 चुके हो4, उनके8 ( छ०ग० राज्य सड़के पुरिरावहोन बिनगमा) स.आई.डी.स. केय"केल के8 स व पुशान प्रेय1जोन हो त नगराय बिनकेय के8 स व के सथ गर्णन केरान के8 स्वके6 बित बिनम्नलिलखि>त शात? के तहोत प्रेद्न केरात हो4 :- 1. स वबिनव6त्त / केय"रात / केमा"चुरिराय@ द्वारा प्रेप्त स.पु.एफ. के8 रालिशा वत"मान मा Cके द्वारा प्रेचुलिलत ब्यजो 04 प्रेबितशात के8 द्रा स ड्राफ्ट द्वारा स'चुलके, के' ट्रो1लरा ऑफ पुशान, रायपुरा के नमा स जोमा केरान अबिनवय" हो1ग। 2. स''धिKत बिनकेय@ मा केमा"चुरिराय@ के8 स'बिवलिलयन टिद्न'के स अ'शाद्न रालिशा अधिKकेतमा व तनमान पुरा 09 प्रेबितशात एव' 12 प्रेबितशात के8 द्रा स स'चुलके, के' ट्रो1लरा ऑफ पुशान, रायपुरा के नमा स जोमा केरान अबिनवय" हो1ग। 3. नगराय बिनकेय@ द्वारा उक्त केय"वहो पुMर्ण" केरान के पुश्चात पुशान स्वके6 बित हो त स'चुलनलय, नगराय प्रेशासन एव' बिवकेस, नय रायपुरा के1 प्रेकेरार्ण भा जो जोव ग। 6 छत्तीसगढ़ का रीज्यपुल का नमं स तथा आदीशानसरी, (आरी. एक्का) उपु सलिचुव छत्तसगढ़ शासन नगराय प्रेशासन एव' बिवकेस बिवभाग 10. Having considered the aforesaid specific order passed by the State Government regarding the grant of additional pensionary benefits to the erstwhile employees of MP/CG SRTC, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get refund of the contribution claimed by him. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was a member of the EPF Scheme, it cannot be presumed that the Government shall pass an order differentiating between members of the CPF employee and EPF employee, as the aforesaid order has been passed in respect of all employees who were originally employees of MP/CG SRTC. In that view of the matter, the fact that the contribution of one Umashankar Yadav has been refunded to him does not entitle the petitioner to claim a similar refund contribution because it appears that the order passed in favour of Umashankar Yadav was contrary to the Government order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure P-3). It is a settled principle of law that no relief can be granted on the basis of negative parity. Further, WPS No.5919/2023 (Bacchan Dubey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) has already been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by taking a similar view. 11.In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is liable to be 7 and is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar