Background of the petitions

The single‑bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, heard a batch of 24 petitions filed by former workers of several Janpad Panchayats. Petitioners such as Urmila Panigrahi argued that after many years of service they should be entitled to a government pension.

They anchored their claim on Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, interpreting it as a safeguard that extends existing salary, allowances and retirement benefits—including pension—to every Panchayat employee.

The claimants also pointed to alleged pension payments made to staff of the Gunderdehi and Takhatpur Janpad Panchayats, contending that denying similar benefits to them would breach the principle of equality.

State government’s counter‑argument

The state contested the petitions, explaining that the amounts received by six officials in the two Janpad Panchayats were not derived from any statutory state‑level pension scheme. Those payments, the government said, came from locally‑created pension funds administered by the respective Panchayats.

In August 2026, show‑cause notices were served to the officials responsible for those disbursements, emphasizing that the payments were irregular and lacked legal sanction.

Judicial analysis

The bench observed that an ad‑hoc payment by a local body cannot, by itself, create a legal entitlement for all other employees. It stressed that Panchayat staff operate under a separate set of recruitment and service regulations and cannot be automatically classified as regular state‑government employees merely because they perform public duties.

While Section 131 of the Panchayat Raj Act protects existing benefits, the court noted it does not generate a fresh pension right. The petitioners’ service conditions already provide for a contributory provident‑fund scheme.

Under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, employees covered by a contributory provident‑fund arrangement are excluded from the statutory government pension scheme. Moreover, the 1999 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service Rules contain no clause granting pension benefits to the categories of workers who filed the petitions.

Outcome

After weighing the relevant statutes, service rules, and the submissions of both parties, the High Court concluded that the retired Panchayat workers had failed to establish any statutory right to a pension. It reiterated that courts cannot fashion a pension scheme where the legislature has provided none.

Accordingly, all 24 petitions were dismissed, leaving the claimants without a legal claim to a government‑backed pension.