1 2026:CGHC:3726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2166 of 2023 Om Prakash Parhi S/o Shri Tankdhar Parhi, Aged About 64 Years, Retired Panchayat Secretary, R/o Village Post Risora, Sariya Tahsil Baramkela District Raigarh Now Present District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 The Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Sector 19, North Block Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 The Collector District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 5 The Deputy Director Panchayat, District Sarangarh Balaigarh Chhattisgarh 6 The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 7 The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baramkela District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 8 - The Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 9 - The Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Agarwal, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/01/2026 1. By way of this petition, the present petitioner does not challenge any particular order, but rather seeks redressal against the arbitrary inaction of the respondent authorities. Despite submission of the representation by the petitioner with regard to pension and other service benefits, the respondent authorities have not yet decided the same. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs : 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ suitable direction towards the respondents to count the service of petitioner from initial date of appointment as qualifying service and to pay the pension and other service benefits with interest. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order/ suitable direction towards the respondents to consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh as (Annexure P-7) within stipulated period and also pay two advance increment as per the guideline of state government dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P-3). 3 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate, 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Panchayat Karmi/Secretary vide order dated 22.10.1995 and joined on the said post on 23.10.1995. During the petitioner’s tenure, the State Government had issued guidelines on 29.8.2008 and an order dated 16.8.2013 in respect of Panchayat Karmis. These measures were intended to serve the larger interest of Panchayat Secretaries serving throughout the State by enhancing honorarium based on the length of service. Under these guidelines, the Panchayat Secretary was entitled to two increments during their service period. Subsequently, in 2012-2013, the State Government took a policy decision to grant the benefit of regular pay scale to the Panchayat Sachiv in the State of Chhattisgarh, who had completed more than 15 years of continuous service. Consequent to this policy, the petitioner was granted regular pay scale and other benefits. The petitioner superannuated on 30.6.2021, however, he has not been granted pension and other service benefits. The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents on 9.12.2022 with regard to counting of his qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits, but till date, no action has been taken. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having been appointed as Panchayat Secretary, was granted benefit under Contributory Pension Scheme after his superannuation on 30.6.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is 4 an employee of Panchayat Service, is also entitled to the benefit of Old Pension Scheme as per the Notification dated 11.5.2022 and the subsequent Memo/Circular issued by the State Government on 20.1.2023. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the aforementioned Notification and Order are applicable exclusively to the State Government employees and do not extend to the employees of the Panchayat Service or other Departments. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 7. Upon perusal of the record of the case, it is evident that the above Notification and Order have been passed in respect of the State Government Employees, who were previously covered under the New Pension Scheme. Subsequently, the State has clarified these orders to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to all such employees. However, this Scheme has not been made available to the members/employees of the Panchayat Service. 8. In light of the foregoing, this Court does not consider the present to be a fit case for granting relief to the petitioner in respect of the Old Pension Scheme. 9. Consequent, the Peition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay