Shyamlal Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:46576

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1618 of 2023

¶6

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶7

1 - Shyamlal Rathiya S/o Late Manohar Prasad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village And Post - Gurda, Tehsil - Kharsiya District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 496665

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Nava Raipur) Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Nava Raipur) Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council - Kharsiya, Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

11.09.2025

2

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for the following relief(s) :-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record relating to grant of Pension and General Provident Fund to the employees of Municipal Council Kharsiya.

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, by way of writ of mandamus to initiate action for inclusion of the petitioner in Pension Scheme and General Provident Fund schemes similar to other employees of Municipal Council Kharsiya.

¶22

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, by way of writ of mandamus to calculate Pension and GPF from the date of initial appointment.

¶23

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, by way of writ of mandamus to provide the petitioner with GPF account.

¶24

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit according to the facts & circumstances of the case may also be granted. ”

¶25

3

¶26

Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II/Upper Division Teacher within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council, Kharsiya, against vacant and sanctioned posts of teachers. He would further submit that the Department of Urban Administration and Development took a decision to absorb the service of the petitioner and other teachers on regular vacant post after the fixation of salary vide order dated 06.05.2020. He would also submit that as per the said decision, the absorbed teachers were to be covered under the Contributory Pension Scheme (for short, CPS) and their absorption was given effect from 01.07.2018 vide order dated 06.09.2020.

¶27

He would contend that the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Finance and Planning, had issued guidelines for extending the benefits of the Contributory Pension Scheme to the teachers and as per the letter dated 01.08.2012, each member/employee was to be allotted a Permanent Retirement Account Number (for short, PRAN). It is further submitted that vide notification dated 11.05.2022, the State re-introduced the Old Pension Scheme (for short, OPS), as per the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The petitioner submitted representation seeking allotment of PRAN and opening of GPF accounts. He also submitted that the Municipal Council, Kharsiya, admitted the fact that the petitioner is entitled to the Contributory Pension Scheme or any other pension scheme introduced by the

¶28

4

¶29

Government, but in the absence of a proper response from the State Government, the benefit of the pension scheme has not been extended. He would further contend that till date, PRAN could not be allotted to the petitioner; thus, he prays that a direction may be issued to the respondents to provide PRAN and to include his name for pension scheme and General Provident Fund (for short, GPF) benefits.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that petitioner was appointed around 1998 under the Chhattisgarh Shiksha Karmi (Nagari Nikay) (Bharti Tatha Padonnati) Niyam, 1998, and there was no provision for pension or other retirement benefits in the Rules, 1998. It is argued that though a proposal was sent to the State Government for the grant of benefits under the Contributory Pension Scheme, no decision has been taken. It is further submitted that PRAN has now been allotted, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the New Pension Scheme (for short, NPS). It is also submitted that the petitioners' service was absorbed vide order dated 06.05.2020, and he, with his open eyes, had accepted the terms and conditions mentioned therein, including the applicability of the NPS.

¶31

With regard to GPF, it is contended that there was no provision for its applicability. Learned counsel further submitted that vide letter dated 10.03.2023, the Government clarified that the Old Pension Scheme would be applicable to Government servants in place of

¶32

5

¶33

the NPS; however, the said benefit would not be extended to the employees of the urban local bodies, and clarification in this regard has been sought from the State Government. In the absence of any guidelines or instructions from the State Government, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶35

The relief sought by the petitioner relates, firstly, to allotment of PRAN, and secondly, to applicability of the pension scheme and inclusion of his name in the GPF from the date of his initial appointment. The material on record indicates that the Municipal Council, Kharsiya, from time to time, has sought directions from the State Government in this regard, but the matter has not yet been finalised.

¶36

The petitioner has been working with the respondents since 1998, and his service was absorbed in the year 2018, but till date, no final decision has been taken with regard to his entitlement under the pension scheme and the GPF. It is informed by the Advocates appearing for the respondents that PRAN has been provided to the petitioner.

¶37

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representations before respondents No. 1 and 2 and in turn, respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to

¶38

6

¶39

consider and decide the claims of the petitioner regarding the applicability of the appropriate pension scheme and inclusion of his name for the grant of GPF benefits, strictly in accordance with the law, and to pass a reasoned order preferably within a period of

¶40

120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶42

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶43

Saxena

Shyamlal Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamlal Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sulki Korram

Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohan Kanhai

Aakash Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Shabbir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Matiyara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priyanka Sarathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh