Dismissed¶¶35

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Sept 2025WPS/2733/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pension denial to retired Janpad Panchayat employees; no provision of pension in Rules or appointment orders; writ petitions WPS No. 2712/2023 and WPS No. 2733/2023 dismissed; State of Chhattisgarh and CEO Janpad Panchayat Antagarh; impugned rejection orders dated 30.07.2019 and 05.09.2019; Chhattisgarh High Court, 19.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since neither the Rules nor the petitioners' appointment orders themselves contain any provision of pension, the relief of pension prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. ¶¶34

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:48285

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2712 of 2023

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

--- Respondent(s)

¶12

WPS No. 2733 of 2023

¶13

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

¶14

--- Petitioner(s)

¶15

Versus

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

--- 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

19.09.2025

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

“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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.’’

¶25

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

¶26

“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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.’’

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

AMIT PATEL

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mala Koushik Vs Parmjeet Siingh

Sukhlal Darro Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajaram

Chirag Sharma Vs Mahendra Singh

Suhag Bati Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jambeshwar Lal Meshram (J.L. Meshram) Vs State of Chhattisgarh