For Petitioner : Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel
Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
1.4.2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate writ/ order/ direction
including the writ of mandamus and directing the
respondents to extend the benefits of the pension to
the petitioner at par with the teachers of School
Education Department, in the interest of justice.
10(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue a appropriate writ/ order/ direction including
the writ of mandamus and directing the respondents
particularly respondent no. 1 to provide grant in aid
to the institution of the petitioner for payment of
special grant for pension to the petitioner, in the
interest of justice.
10(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the
facts and circumstances of the case, may also be
granted."
2. It appears that the petitioner was a teacher working with Bharat
Mata (M/H) High Secondary School, Bilaspur. His services are
governed with CG Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon
Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam,
1978. The petitioner has claimed pension and other benefits at
par with the government teachers.
3. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State would
submit that the petitioner was teacher working with Bharat Mata
(M/H) High Secondary School, Bilaspur and said institution was
getting grant-in-aid. He would submit that as Adhiniyam of 1978
and Revised Rules for Grant In Aid To Non-Government
Educational Institutions, 1979, the teachers of Ashaskiya
Shikshan Sanstha are not entitled for pension.
4. Heard.
5. Issue involved in the present case is no more res-integra. The
coordinate bench of this Court has passed the order in the matter
of Ashok Kumar Hazra & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Ors. in WPS No. 2789 of 2017 and other connected matters,
while dealing the the similar issue, in paragraphs no. 14 to 19,
held as under:-
"14. On a specific query made, the petitioners
failed to establish that there are any rules with
regard to grant of pensionary benefits. Even the
Government is granting aid to the schools only for
the purpose of proper management and small
funding and, as such, it cannot be said that the
petitioners are also entitled for pensionary benefits
at par with the government teachers.
15. It is well settled law that the Court cannot direct
the legislature to enact a particular law for reason
that under the constitutional scheme Parliament
exercises sovereign power to enact law and no
outside power or authority can issue a particular
piece of legislation [See: Supreme Court
Employees' Welfare Association v Union of
India Another (1989) 4 SCC 187].
16. Very recently the Supreme Court in the matter
of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs.
Headmistress Girls High School and Junior
College, Anji (Mothi), Tahsil and District Wardha
and Others reported in (2025) 10 SCC 248 =
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 696 categorically held that the
posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by the
Government or approved in accordance with the
Rules and pay and allowances are also paid by the
Government. The aided school teachers are also
entitled to some of the conditions of service as are
applicable to government teachers, with entitlement
of pension, provident fund and gratuity as
applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought
out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
17. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the
aforesaid decision the Supreme Court held that the
aided school teachers are entitled to some of the
conditions to service as are applicable to the
government teachers in accordance with the rules
brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India whereas in the cases at hand there is no such
rules which have been framed in the said
provisions of the Constitution.
18. Having considered the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that in absence of particular rules,
the State cannot be directed to make rules by
extending the pensionary benefits to the retired
teachers/ employees of the aided schools at par
with the teachers/ employees of the State
Government.
19. In the result, all the petitions sans substratum,
are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No
order as to cost(s)."
6. Taking into consideration the above facts and the law laid down in
the matter of Ashok Kumar Hazra (supra), this petition fails and
is hereby dismissed at admission stage.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Ajinkya
