G.R. Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1129 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

G.R. Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026

                                  1




                                                 2026:CGHC:14821

                                                              NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                       WPS No. 2424 of 2021

1 - Hemant Singh Thakur S/o Shri P.S. Thakur Aged About 57 Years
Working As P.T.I., Govt. Nutan Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari, R/o
Shraddha Nagar, Infront Of Ama Talab, Ambedkar Ward, Dhamtari,
District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2 - Rikhiram Shrivas S/o Shri Bisahu Ram Shrivas Aged About 61
Years Working As Principal, Govt. Nutan Higher Secondary School,
Dhamtari, R/o Ama Talab Road, Near Puja Kirana Stores, Dhamtari,
District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3 - Rajkumar Sahu S/o Late Jagdish Ram Sahu Aged About 59 Years
Working As Lecturer, Govt. Nutan Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari,
R/o Near By Laxmi Niwas, Rudri Road, Gokulpur, Dhamtari, District -
Dhamtari   (Chhattisgarh),   District  :   Dhamtari,  Chhattisgarh

4 - Snehchand Khristi S/o Late Chandrakant Khristi Aged About 54
Years Working As Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Nutan Higher
Secondary School, Dhamtari, R/o Sneh Chhaya, Jodhapur Ward,
Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh

5 - Seema Dhorpade S/o Bhagwant Rao Deshmukh Aged About 58
Years Working As Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Nutan Higher
Secondary School, Dhamtari, R/o Kuwa No. 18, Basnpara, Dhamtari,
District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

6 - Navita Goswami S/o Shri O.P. Goswami Aged About 51 Years
Working As Assistant Teacher, Govt. Nutan Higher Secondary School,
Dhamtari, R/o Goswami Niwas, Puja Provision Gali, Gaurav Path, Ama
Talab Road, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District :
Dhamtari,                                              Chhattisgarh

7 - Bharat Ram Dhruv S/o Late Shri Ramnath Dhruv Aged About 55
Years Working As Peon, Govt. Nutan Higher Secondary School,
Dhamtari, R/o Bharat Ram Dhruv, Gram Panchayat Bhoyana, Post
Achhota, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari,
                                     2

Chhattisgarh

8 - Mohanlal Prajapati S/o Late Shri Chhoturam Aged About 47 Years
Working As Peon, Govt. Nutan Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari,
R/o Kumhar Para Shiv Mandir Ward, Bramhanpara, Dhamtari, District -
Dhamtari   (Chhattisgarh),    District  :  Dhamtari,  Chhattisgarh

9 - Smt. Vandana Babar W/o Shri Mahendra Rao Babar Aged About 62
Years Working As Principal, Dani Marathi Higher Secondary School,
Dhamtari, R/o Maratha Para, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari
(Chhattisgarh),    District     :      Dhamtari,     Chhattisgarh

10 - Sudhir Rao Gaikwad S/o Late Jaisingh Rao Gaikwad, Working As
Upper Division Teacher, Dani Marathi Higher Secondary School,
Dhamtari, R/o Gaikwad Niwas, Rampur Ward, Dhamtari, District -
Dhamtari    (Chhattisgarh), District   :  Dhamtari,  Chhattisgarh

11 - Prakash Rao Pawar S/o Late Shri Shyam Rao Pawar Aged About
53 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher, Dani Marathi Higher
Secondary School, Dhamtari, R/o Master Line, District Hospital Road,
Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh

12 - Basant Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Gokul Dewangan Aged About
57 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Science), Dani Marathi Higher
Secondary School, Dhamtari, R/o Shanti Chowk, Sorid Nagar,
Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh

13 - Smt. Krishna Soni W/o Rajesh Soni Aged About 50 Years Working
As Assistant Teacher, Aryagirls Primary School, Dhamtari, District -
Dhamtari     (Chhattisgarh), District  :  Dhamtari,   Chhattisgarh

14 - Smt. Rama Tiwari Wd./o Late Pradeep Tiwari Aged About 61 Years
Working As Assistant Teacher, Arya Girls Primary School, Dhamtari,
R/o Rudri Road, Rampur Ward, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari
(Chhattisgarh),    District      :     Dhamtari,       Chhattisgarh

15 - Smt. Shama Masih W/o Shri Manish Kumar Masih Aged About 55
Years Working As Assistant Teacher, Menonite Primary School,
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, R/o Dak Bangla Ward, Dhamtari, District -
Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
                                                        --- Petitioner(s)

                                versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
                                   3


2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Finance
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, General
Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
                                             --- Respondent(s)

WITH

1 - Dhananjay Gayakwad S/o Shri Krishna Rao Gayakwad Aged About 65 Years Retd. Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Nutan Higher Middle School Dhamtari Block Dhamtari R/o Near Govt. Boy School Rampur Ward Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

2 - Nahemyah Bhothar S/o Shri Ghurau Ram Aged About 75 Years Retd. Peon In School Menonite Primary School Dhamtari Block Dhamtari R/o Dr. Bhelwa Gali, Tikrapara Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

3 - Smt. S. L. Daulat W/o Late K. P. S. Martin Aged About 66 Years Retd. Assistant Teacher In Menonite Primary School Dhamtari R/o Risaipara Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

4 - Smt. R. B. Lal D/o Late P. R. Bharos Aged About 63 Years Retd. Headmaster Menonite Primary School Dhamtari District Dhamtari R/o Bekan Niwas Tikrapara Bastar Road, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

WITH

1 - G.R. Sahu S/o Chamar Ray Aged About 71 Years R/o Block Churiya, Bholapur, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District :

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2 - Janakram Yadav S/o Chaituram Yadav Aged About 69 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Thethwar Para, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

3 - Jagannath Verma S/o Ram Lal Verma Aged About 68 Years R/o H.No. 00, Ward No. 11, Maharana Pratap Bhavan Ke Peeche, Shankar Nagar, Durg, District- Durg,chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4 - Dushyant Kumar Sharma S/o Sharda Prasad Aged About 71 Years R/o H.No. 31, Brahman Para, P.S.- Durg, Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

5 - Ramesh Kumar Sonboir S/o Chain Das Sonboir Aged About 59 Years R/o 716, Gali No. 1, Ward No. 03, New Colony, Gayanagar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

6 - T.D.V. Prasad S/o Late Shri T. Chandrashekhar Rao Aged About 63 Years R/o Lig- 292, Aditya Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

7 - Dhal Singh Hirwani S/o Subansh Lal Hirwani Aged About 67 Years R/o 15/k, Borsi Road, Behind S.B.I New Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 52, Potiyakala, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District :

Durg, Chhattisgarh

8 - Smt. Swarna Lata Agrawal W/o Chandra Kumar Agrawal Aged About 69 Years R/o 137, Ward No. 13, Arya Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.R. Sahu, Advocate and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

30.3.2026

1) Since all the petitions have been filed on the same issue, they are

being considered and decided together by this common order.

For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of

WPC No. 2424 of 2021 are being referred.

2) By these petitions, the petitioners who are retired Principal/

Lecturer/ UDT from the aided schools sought a direction towards

the respondents to extend the benefit of pension at par with the

teachers working in the government schools.

3) Case of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petitions, is that

the petitioners are retired from the aided schools and their service

conditions are governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh

Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke

Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short, "the Act of

1978"). Further contention of the petitioners is that their services

are similar to the employees of the government schools and the

government has also issued various circulars extending the

benefits to the employees of the aided schools at par with the

government schools. According to the Rule 33 of the Revised

Rules for Grant In Aid To Non-Government Educational

Institutions, 1979 (for short, "the Rules, 1979"), all the aided

institutions employees entitles for salary similar to the employees

of the State Government. Despite the said fact, the respondent

authorities are not extending the pensionary benefits to the

petitioners.

4) Learned counsel would submit that the refusal to grant pension to

the Petitioners, while extending it to (a) employees of

Government schools, and (b) employees of other 100% aided

private colleges, constitutes an arbitrary and hostile

discrimination. The State is bound by Article 14 to act fairly,

reasonably and without arbitrariness. When the statutory scheme

mandates equivalence, and when circulars affirm the same, the

State cannot depart from uniform treatment on grounds that are

neither rational nor legally justifiable. Denial of pension to senior

citizens who have devoted decades to public education strikes at

the Petitioners' right to live with dignity, thereby offending Article

21. Learned counsel would also submit that the Petitioners,

having served for decades, are left without any post-retiral

support despite fulfilment of statutory obligations. Such denial

does violence to principles of equity, fairness and good

governance. The refusal to extend pension to Petitioners, despite

granting it to employees of 100% aided private colleges,

constitutes an irrational and hostile discrimination. According to

learned counsel, the petitioners and such employees form a

homogeneous class governed by the same statutes. Learned

counsel would next submit that the proposition that when the

State complete financial responsibility for assumes an institution,

its employees must be given benefits identical to Government

employees. Learned counsel would lastly submit that denial of

pension in the present case fails the "reasonable classification"

test under Article 14.

5) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit

that the petitioners are the retired employees of the schools which

are 100% grant in aid school and as the State is providing 100%

grant in aid to the school of the petitioners, therefore, the

petitioners are claiming for pension but the same is not

permissible as the said school is neither a government school nor

the petitioners are the government employees and thus the claim

of the petitioners is baseless. Though the State is providing 100%

grant in aid to the school of the petitioners but it does not mean

that the petitioners will be entitled for pension as the aid is

granted to such schools only for the purpose of proper

management and smooth functioning of the schools. Learned

counsel would submit that under the garb of grant in aid, the

petitioners cannot claim for grant of pension. According to learned

counsel earlier also demands were raised by the private aided

schools and employees union for grant of pension for such

schools and after due consideration, the Department of School

Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh rejected such demands vide its

letter dated 07/01/2009 & 05/02/2009 as there is no provision for

providing pension to such private aided schools, therefore, the

petitioners herein who are the retired employees of a private

aided school, are not entitled for pension and thus the claim of

the petitioners is baseless and the petitions deserve to be

dismissed. He would also submit that the petitioners are retired

teachers of private educational institution and they have failed to

implead their employer as a party to the writ petition and as such,

all the petitions deserve to be dismissed for non-joinder of

necessary party. Moreover, in absence of any rule/regulation/

scheme governing the field, the petitioners are not entitled to

claim pension. He would lastly submit that the petitioners have

filed the petitions after 2-3 years of their retirement. Therefore, on

the ground of delay & laches alone, all the petitions deserve to be

dismissed.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents.

7) The object of the Act of 1978 is to make provision for regulating

payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of Non-

Government Schools receiving grant-in-aid from the State

Government and Non-Government Educational Institutions for

Higher Education receiving grants from the Madhya Pradesh

Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and other matter ancillary thereto.

8) For the sake of convenience, Rules 2(f)(i)(j) of the Rules, 1978

are quoted below :-

"(f) 'Maintenance grant' means grant payable to the Institution by the State Government or the Ayog as the case may be, for maintenance;

xxx

(i) "Teacher" means a teacher of an institution in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government or the Ayog, as the case may be, to the institutions and includes any other teacher employed, with the prior approval of the authority specified by the State Government in this behalf, in fulfilment of the conditions of recognition/ affiliation of an institution or of a new subject or a higher class or a new section in the existing class by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education or any University or the Ayog, as the case may be, and shown on the pay roll of the institution against a post as being in the employment as such but does not include a teacher whose appointment is disapproved under clause (c) of section 6:

(j) "Salary" means the pay and dearness allowance for the time being payable to a teacher or an employee at the rate approved for the purpose of payment of maintenance grant ;"

9) The said Act has subsequently been amended in the year 2000

(for short, "the amended Act 2000"). Rule 2(j) of the Amendment

Act, 2000 reads thus :-

"(j) 'salary' means the salary and other allowances payable to a teacher or an employee at the rate as may be notified by the institution."

10) The State Government also revised the Rules for grant-in-aid to

Non-Government Educational Institutions in the name and style of

Revised Rules for Grant-In-Aid. The said Rules have been

framed with a view to provide assistance for non-Government

effort in the field of education, a sum of money is annually set

apart from the State funds to be expended as grant-in-aid for

educational institutions under non-Government management. The

State Government make the following Rules for regulating grant-

in-aid. Rule 33 of the Revised Rules reads thus :-

"33. (i) The scales of pay of the teachers including the Head of the Institution, and other employees of an educational institution which is in receipt of Government grant shall be in accordance with those sanctioned for the corresponding categories of employees in Government educational institutions.

(ii) Appointments, qualifications of the teachers and other employees, payment of salaries and conditions of service shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978 and the rules made thereunder."

11) Perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that as per the

Rules, 1978 "Teacher" means of an institution in respect of whose

employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government

whereas the "salary" means the pay and dearness allowance for

the time being payable to a teacher or an employee at the rate

approved for the purpose of payment of maintenance grant.

12) According to Rule 10 of the Rules, 1978, the State Government

may, by notification, would make rules for carrying out of the

purposes of this Act. Subsequently by the Amendment Act, 2000,

the word "salary" has been defined that salary means the salary

and other allowances payable to a teacher or an employee at the

rate as may be notified by the institution. From bare perusal of the

said provision, it is crystal clear that 'salary' means the salary and

other allowances and there is no word of pensionary benefits.

13) Even in the Rule 33 of the Revised Rules, scale of pay of the

teachers including the Head of the Institution, and other

employees of an educational institution which is in receipt of

Government grant shall be in accordance with those sanctioned

for the corresponding categories of employees in Government

educational institutions whereas the appointments, qualifications

of the teachers and other employees payment of salaries and

conditions of service shall be governed by the provisions of the

Rules, 1978 and the rules made thereunder.

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).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

Ajinkya