1 2026:CGHC:26207-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 522 of 2026 M.S. Painkra S/o Late Shree A. S. Painkra Aged About 73 Years R/o A/64, R/o Amrapali Housing Society, Lalpur, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Gad, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Public Service Commission Through Secretary Psc, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Union of India Through Secretary, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel And Training PG And Pensions, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 4 - Accountant General Baloda Bazar Road, Zero Point, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.06.30 10:17:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No.1, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.3 as well as Mr. Ashwani Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6183 of 2021 (M.S. Painkra v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. By filing the present writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of appellant. ii) It is therefore prayed that the impugned order date 06/04/2026 passed by the Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (S) 6183/2021 may kindly be set-aside in the interest of justice. 3 iii) That this Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 27/08/2021 issued by Respondent no.1 and further be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to revise the pension of the petitioner in the light of amendment carried out in Regulation 8(3) of Regulation 2001with further direction that the pension shall be revised from time to time in accordance with the said provision. iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no.1 to allow Dearness Relief on the pension in accordance with Regulation 9(6) of the Regulation 2001. v) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper's in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was serving under the Government of Chhattisgarh and, at the time of his superannuation, was holding the post of Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh. He retired from government service on 30.06.2013. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (‘CGPSC’) on 02.09.2013. During his tenure, he was also appointed as the Acting Chairman of the CGPSC on 21.05.2015 and continued to discharge the said duties till completion of his tenure on 13.06.2015. 4. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that during his tenure as Member of the CGPSC, he was paid salary and allowances in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Aayog (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2001 (for short, 4 ‘Regulations, 2001’). After demitting office, he became entitled to pension for the services rendered as Member of the Commission and has been receiving a fixed pension of ₹1,646/- per month. However, according to the appellant/writ petitioner, the respondents have failed to grant dearness relief on the said pension. 5. Aggrieved by the denial of dearness relief, the appellant/writ petitioner instituted the writ petition bearing WPS No.6183 of 2021, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.04.2026. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2026 passed in WPS No.6183 of 2021, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition without properly appreciating the scheme of the Regulations, 2001. It is contended that had the appellant exercised the option contemplated under Regulation 8(2), the period of service rendered by him as a Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission would have been counted along with his parent government service and his pension would consequently have been liable to revision from time to time in accordance with the service rules applicable to his parent department, including the benefit of Dearness Relief. 5 8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant is not claiming any independent or additional pension beyond the statutory limit, but only seeks revision of pension within the permissible ceiling prescribed under Regulation 8(3), which has itself been amended from time to time. It is argued that the very object of revising pension and extending Dearness Relief is to neutralize the effects of inflation and rising cost of living. The provision of separate pension to Members of the Public Service Commission is intended to compensate for the constitutional embargo contained in Article 319 of the Constitution of India, which renders a Member ineligible for further employment under the Union or the State after demitting office. Therefore, denial of Dearness Relief defeats the very object underlying the Regulations. 9. It is lastly submitted that Regulation 9(6) itself recognizes grant of Dearness Relief to Members appointed from non-government sources, thereby indicating the legislative intent that pension payable under the Regulations is subject to revision from time to time. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to correctly interpret the statutory Regulations and the constitutional scheme, and accordingly, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appellant be held entitled to Dearness Relief on the pension payable for his tenure as Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. 6 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the Union of India and the Office of the Accountant General support the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that the appellant has been granted all retiral benefits strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations, 2001. It is contended that the appellant, after retirement from Government service, was appointed as a Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and has been paid the pension admissible under the Regulations. Since the Regulations do not provide for grant of Dearness Relief on the pension payable to a retired Member in the manner claimed by the appellant, no such benefit can be claimed as a matter of right. 11. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Regulations and has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled to the relief claimed. The respondents contend that the appellant cannot seek extension of benefits dehors the statutory framework or by importing provisions applicable to Government servants. It is, therefore, prayed that, as no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgment, the present writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and 7 have carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “6) Regulation 8 of Regulations, 2001 deals with pension payable to members who were in government service. According to Regulation 8(2), government servants subsequently appointed as member or chairman of CGPSC may opt for pension. According to Regulation 8(3), maximum pension payable would be Rs.1,56,000/- for chairman and Rs. 1,47,000/- for member. Further, cap is provided in Regulations, 2001 in order to avoid double enrichment. It is not in dispute that a government servant gets pension from his department and if at the same time, he is member or acting chairman of CGPSC, he would be entitled to receive pension according to Regulations, 2001. In absence of any such cap, government servant would collect pension from State Government as well as maximum pension mentioned in Regulation 8(3). In such a case, State Government grants a lump-sum amount or difference amount to the government servant to maintain balance. 7) In present case, petitioner receiving monthly pension of Rs.1,646/- as he was 8 member and acting chairman of CGPSC and decision taken by the respondent authorities with respect to non-revision of his pension appears to be just and proper as petitioner is already receiving the pension for the service rendered with the State Government and same is being revised duly. 8) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).” 14. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the claim of the appellant. The entitlement of a Member or Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to salary, allowances and pension is governed entirely by the statutory Regulations, 2001. The rights and liabilities of the parties, therefore, have to be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions contained therein. It is well settled that pensionary benefits, though valuable rights, cannot be claimed dehors the statutory rules governing the field, nor can a benefit be extended by implication when the Regulations do not contemplate the same. 15. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that he is entitled to revision of pension and grant of Dearness Relief by taking aid of Regulations 8(2), 8(3) and 9(6) of the Regulations, 2001. We are unable to accept the said submission. Regulation 8 provides a complete mechanism governing pension 9 payable to Members who were previously Government servants. It also prescribes an upper ceiling so as to ensure that the combined pension payable to such Members does not exceed the maximum limit stipulated therein. The object of the provision is evidently to regulate pensionary entitlement where a retired Government servant, after superannuation, is appointed as a Member of the Commission. Merely because the ceiling prescribed under Regulation 8(3) has undergone revision from time to time, it cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the fixed pension payable to every retired Member is liable to be revised periodically or that Dearness Relief is payable irrespective of the scheme of the Regulations. 16. Equally untenable is the contention founded upon Article 319 of the Constitution of India. The constitutional embargo contained therein merely restricts further employment after demitting office as a Member or Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Such restriction, by itself, cannot be construed as creating an enforceable right to claim revision of pension or Dearness Relief in the absence of an express statutory provision. Likewise, Regulation 9(6), which deals with Members appointed from non- government sources, cannot be imported for conferring benefits upon a person whose pension is governed by Regulation 8. Each provision operates in its own field and cannot be read in a manner contrary to the legislative scheme. 10 17. We also find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that the appellant is already drawing pension for the services rendered under the State Government, which is being revised in accordance with the applicable service rules. In addition thereto, the appellant has been granted the pension admissible for the tenure served by him as Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission in terms of the Regulations, 2001. The competent authority has, therefore, extended all benefits admissible under the statutory framework. The claim now raised by the appellant seeks a benefit which is not envisaged under the Regulations and, therefore, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to grant such benefit. 18. It is trite that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot rewrite statutory provisions or create a financial entitlement which the rule-making authority has consciously not provided. Judicial review is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and not to substituting the Court's interpretation for the legislative intent where the statutory language is clear. We find that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the Regulations, 2001 and the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the statutory scheme while dismissing the writ petition. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge neither 11 suffers from any error of law nor from any perversity or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference in the present intra- Court appeal. No ground has been made out for taking a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge. 20. Consequently, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.6183 of 2021 is affirmed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu