[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rakesh Kumar Saxena vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1/5
2026:CGHC:13485
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2637 of 2026
Rakesh Kumar Saxena S/o Late Kamal Kishor Saxena Aged About 61 Years
Posted As Assistant Teacher (LB) Government Primary School Lawar Block
Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary Ministry, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Government Of
Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur (Cg)
3 - Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur (Cg)
4 - Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
5 - Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.03.24
10:44:05
+0530
2/5
6 - Under Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
7 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Block-Ii, 2nd Floor, Indrawati
Bahwan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
8 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bahwan Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Cg)
9 - Joint Director Directorate Of School Education, Bilspur Division, District
Bilaspur (Cg)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner :Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate
For State :Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
20/03/2026
1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent State to apply old pension scheme under
Rule 1976 instead of NPS upon the petitioner.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to grant the amount of
gratuity after retirement calculating her service period
from their date of initial appointment/joining.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to refund of amount of
NPS already deducted to the petitioner.
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to deduct the GPF from
the salary of petitioner instead of CPF;
10.5 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court
deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in
favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
initially appointed as Shikshakarmi in the year 2006. Pursuant to Policy
formulated by the State Govt. services of the petitioner were absorbed
in the School Education Department in the year 2018. However,
petitioner is apprehending that petitioner will be paid pension under the
New Pension Scheme (NPS) and not under the Old Pension Scheme
(OPS). Similarly placed Teachers have filed writ petition bearing WPS
No.777 of 2021 and other connected matters which was disposed of by
a detailed order directing respondent authority therein to consider claim
of those Teachers and to take decision within specified time frame and
therefore similar order may also be passed in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in WPS No.777 of
2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court has only directed the authority to
consider and take decision on the claim of petitioners therein and if
such a direction is issued, he is having no objection to the limited
prayer.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the documents annexed along with this writ petition.
5. Petitioners who have filed WPS No.777 of 2021 and other
connected matters are also the Teachers according to submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner. That writ petition was disposed of on
17.02.2026 making following observation :
"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."
6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties,
this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of order dated 17.02.2026
passed in WPS No.777 of 2021 and other connected matters.
Respondents are directed to take decision on claim of petitioner in
similar terms as observed in WPS No.777 of 2021, within 3 months
from date of receipt of the order.
Sd/-- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
