Petitions presented before the bench

A single‑judge bench headed by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru of the Chhattisgarh High Court examined twenty‑four writ petitions filed by ex‑employees of several Janpad Panchayats. The applicants, among them Urmila Panigrahi, argued that long‑standing service in the panchayat system should qualify them for a government‑backed pension.

Their claim hinged on Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, which they read as a safeguard extending all existing salary, allowance and retirement benefits—including pension—to every panchayat worker.

The petitioners also pointed to alleged pension payments made to staff of the Gunderdehi and Takhatpur Janpad Panchayats, asserting that denying identical benefits to similarly situated employees breached the principle of equality.

State’s rebuttal

The state government contested the filings, explaining that the sums paid to six officials in the two Janpad Panchayats originated from locally‑created pension funds, not from any statutory state‑level pension scheme.

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.

The bench observed that an ad‑hoc payment by a local authority cannot, by itself, generate a universal legal right for all other employees. It underscored that panchayat staff are governed by separate 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 create a fresh pension entitlement. 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 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.

Decision

After weighing the relevant statutes, service rules, and arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded that the retired panchayat staff had not established any legal right to a pension. It reaffirmed that courts cannot fashion a pension scheme where the legislature has provided none.

Accordingly, all twenty‑four petitions were dismissed, leaving the former employees without a claim to a government‑sponsored pension.