Suhag Bati Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Suhag Bati Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1

2025:CGHC:48285

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2712 of 2023

Suhag Bati Jain W/o Late Shri Madan Singh Jain (Retired A.S.G.-3) Aged About 61 Years R/o House No.-15 Naya Para Village Uttamar Tehsil Bhanupratappur, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

Digitally signed byAMIT PATEL --- Petitioner(s) Date: 2025.09.19 18:02:38 +0530

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Under Panchayat And Rural Devlopment New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Antagarh, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPS No. 2733 of 2023

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi D/o Shri Harikrishna Panigrahi Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Uttamar Tehsil Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Under Panchayat And Rural Development New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Antagarh District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board

19.09.2025

By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) in WPS No. 2712/2023:-

2

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kinldy be pleased to call for the entire records for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

10.2 That Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 Annexure P/1 and issue a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of pension to the petitioner, from the date of retirement.

iii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.’’

By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) in WPS No. 2733/2023:-

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kinldy be pleased to call for the entire records for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

10.2 That Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 Annexure P/1 and issue a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of pension to the petitioner, from the date of retirement.

iii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.’’

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are seeking pension which has been rejected by the authority concerned stating that there is no provision to grant pension, though the petitioner s are the Ex-employee of Janpad Panchayat Charama and Antagarh respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

3

the petitioners had worked for many years, as such, some sort of relief for the services rendered by the petitioners is required to be granted to them.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that since there is no provision of pension for the employees of Janpad Panchayat in the Rule, the relief as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted.

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

I am afraid of this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even without there being no such Rule or Act granting provision of pension, the petitioners can be granted pension. Considering this aspect that in the Rule as well as in the appointment order itself, there is no provision of pension to the petitioners, as such, this relief which the petitioners are praying cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the aforesaid petitions being devoid of merit liable to be and are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

JUDGE

AMIT PATEL