1 / 2026:CGHC:12040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2418 of 2026 Girwar Kuldeep S/o Mr. Pritam Das Kuldeep Aged About 46 Years Post- Teacher (Local Body) Posted At Govt Girls Upper Primary School Bhanupratappur Block- Bhanupratappur Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker C.G. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur C.G. 2 - The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya Naya Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Public Education Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker C.G. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Distt- Uttar Baster Kanker C.G. 6 - Secretary Finance Department Mantralaya Naya Raipur Distt- Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents- State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/03/2026 1. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “I) Direct the respondents to hold that services of the petitioner are pensionable service as per old Pension 2 / scheme of pension, by counting whole service period of the petitioner, that from the initial date of appointment (Annexure P/2). ii) direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in light of judgment pass by the Hon'ble Court in WPS 777/2021. iii) direct the respondents to hold that the petitioner's service is pensionable service and petitioner is entitle for pension and other consequential benefits as per old scheme of pension as per Pension Rules 1979. iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi and pursuant to the policy formulated by the State Government, services of the Shiksha Karmis were absorbed in the School Education Department, however, petitioner is contending that the petitioner will not be granted benefit of old pension scheme. Similarly placed petitioners (teachers) have filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 777 of 2021 and other connected matters, which was disposed of by coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 and the case of the petitioner is also similar and therefore similar order may be passed in this case also. 3. Counsel for the State submits that the order which is referred and annexed by the petitioner Annexure P/1, direction was issued to the State Government to take decision on the claim of the petitioner therein, therefore, he is having no objection to the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 3 / 4. Relevant portion of the order in WPS No. 771 of 2021 is extracted below: “45. In the considered view of this Court, the ends of justice would be best served not by issuing a mandamus either granting or denying pensionary benefits, but by requiring the respondent-State to undertake a comprehensive and reasoned reconsideration of the determinative date of appointment for pensionary purposes in respect of employees whose service commenced as Shikshakarmis and later culminated in absorption into regular government service. Such reconsideration must necessarily take into account the continuity of service, nature of duties performed, source of salary, administrative control, and the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 46. It is, therefore, clarified in unequivocal terms that this Court does not strike down or modify the existing policy, nor does it direct extension of any specific pensionary benefit. The formulation or amendment of policy remains within the exclusive prerogative of the State Government. However, any policy decision so taken must be clear, unambiguous, uniformly applicable and constitutionally compliant, so as to obviate further litigation and ensure predictability in service administration. 47. The State Government is accordingly expected to take a conscious, reasoned and categorical decision on the issue, including the question as to whether and to what extent the service rendered by the petitioners as Shikshakarmis prior to absorption in the School Education Department merits consideration for pensionary purposes, including the requirement of completion of ten years of qualifying service from 01.07.2018. Such decision shall be finalized and communicated via a speaking order within a strict period of 120 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is expected that authorities would consider the observations made herein above. 48. Needless to observe that any such decision shall be informed by relevant considerations, shall eschew arbitrariness, and shall conform to the constitutional guarantees of fairness, non- discrimination, and proportionality.” 4 / 5. On due consideration of the submissions of counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in WPS No. 777 of 2021. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh