1 2026:CGHC:25592-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 515 of 2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretray Department Of General Administration Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Pensioners Samaj Collectorate Premises, Raipur Through Its Regional President Shri Chetan Bharti, S/o Late Sukhram Bharti, Aged About 76 Years, Bajrang Chowk, Mathpara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal, District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 3 - The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, Second Floor Major Dhyanchand National Stadium, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchi Nagar and Mr. T.S. Sahu, Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.24 13:23:23 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for appellant / State. Also heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar and Mr. T.S. Sahu, learned counsel for respective respondents. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4523/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge holding as under:- “8. In consequence of the above respondents are directed to forthwith release the arrears for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 (32 months) and also for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 (27 months). The States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh shall bear their respective share while making payment of pension according to the revised pay scale Rules 2009, to the members of petitioner society within a period of 120 days. The State of Chhattisgarh would be at liberty to claim its share from the State of Madhya Pradesh for making payment according to the provisions entailed in Section 49 of 8 the Act, 2000 9. It is made clear that members of petitioner society, who retired prior to creation of the State of Chhattisgarh i.e. 01.01.2000, shall not be entitled to claim benefits of the 3 revised pay scale by virtue of this order and they would be at liberty to take recourse to law. 10. With the aforesaid direction(s), the instant writ petition stands disposed of.” 3. Briefs facts of the case are that a registered association representing pensioners who were originally recruited in various departments of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Following the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the members became residents of the newly formed State of Chhattisgarh. The State of Chhattisgarh introduced the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 effective from 01.01.2006 (6th Pay Commission) and the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 effective from 01.01.2016 (7th Pay Commission). However, through various circulars (dated 31.08.2009 and 06.07.2018), the appellants herein fixed discriminatory entitlement dates for pensioners who retired prior to these implementation dates. Pre-2006 retirees were only granted benefits from 01.09.2008 (denying 32 months of arrears), and pre- 2016 retirees from 01.04.2018 (denying 27 months of arrears). The appellants denied these arrears citing a lack of "mutual agreement" or concurrence from the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding pensionary liabilities under Section 49 of the Act of 2000. Despite a clarification from the Union of India/Respondent No. 3 herein stating that no such mutual agreement is required under the Act, the State authorities maintained their refusal. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 4 herein preferred WPS No. 4523/2021, which came to be disposed of be the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.04.2026, giving rise to present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in disposing of the writ petition by placing reliance upon the decisions rendered in WPS No.3602/2018, D.S. Nakara, All Manipur Pensioners Association and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, without appreciating the distinct factual and legal position governing the present case. It is contended that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had admittedly retired prior to 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016 respectively, much before the enforcement of the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017. The said Rules were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and were intended to revise the pay scales of serving employees. Pensioners who retired prior to the cut-off dates constitute a separate and distinct class from those who retired thereafter and, therefore, cannot claim parity with employees whose pension was determined on the basis of revised pay scales under the Rules of 2009 and 2017. It is further submitted that the State Government, after considering administrative and financial implications, consciously issued circulars dated 31.08.2009 and 06.07.2018 granting revision/consolidation of pension to pre-2006 and pre-2016 retirees with effect from 01.09.2008 and 01.04.2018 respectively, and such policy decision falls within the exclusive domain of the 5 State and is not liable to interference in judicial review. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the issue regarding grant of revised pension to pre-2006 retirees is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in proceedings arising out of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, including SLP (C) Diary No.38768 of 2025, which has been tagged with SLP (C) No.572 of 2021 and referred for consideration by a larger Bench. It is argued that the reliance placed upon the judgments in All Manipur Pensioners Association and other decisions was misplaced, as the State is legally competent to prescribe a cut-off date while extending pensionary benefits, particularly when such decision is founded upon financial and administrative considerations. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Ex-Servicemen League v. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1182 wherein it has been recognized that fixation of a cut-off date for extending revised pensionary benefits is a matter of policy and cannot ordinarily be interfered with. It is also submitted that the respondents are already receiving pension under the applicable pension rules along with enhanced pensionary benefits, including age-based additional pension for pensioners above 80 years of age, and that the impugned circulars uniformly apply to all similarly situated pensioners. Therefore, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for payment of arrears for the periods 6 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 and 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 are contrary to the statutory framework, the State’s policy decisions, and the settled principles governing pension revision. 6. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that no vested or statutory right accrues in favour of the respondents to claim arrears under the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017, as those Rules are not applicable to pensioners who had retired prior to their operative dates. The benefit extended through the circulars dated 31.08.2009 and 06.07.2018 was itself a beneficial policy measure adopted by the State after due consideration of fiscal implications, and the respondents cannot seek a writ of mandamus for extension of benefits beyond the scope of the policy. According to the appellants, the impugned judgment virtually substitutes the policy decision of the State with a judicial determination, disregarding the financial burden and administrative consequences involved. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the writ appeal be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 7 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment passed in WPS No. 3602 of 2018 decided on 19.02.2025, held that the States of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are liable to bear their respective shares of pensionary benefits in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission and that absence of mutual concurrence between the States cannot be a ground to deny legitimate arrears to pensioners. Consequently, the learned Single Judge quashed the clarifications dated 31.08.2009 and 06.07.2018 to the extent they restricted the writ petitioners’ entitlement from 01.09.2008 and 01.04.2018 respectively, instead of from 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016, holding the same to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents therein were accordingly directed to release arrears for the periods from 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008 and from 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 within 120 days, with liberty reserved to the State of Chhattisgarh to recover the corresponding share from the State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 49 of the Reorganisation Act, 2000. However, it was clarified that employees who had retired prior to 01.11.2000 would not be entitled to claim the benefits flowing from the said order. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel 8 appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet