Background of the petitions

In a single‑bench hearing presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, the Chhattisgarh High Court considered 24 petitions filed by former staff of several Janpad Panchayats. The petitioners, among them Urmila Panigrahi, argued that long‑term service in the panchayat system should entitle them to a government‑backed pension.

They relied 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 worker.

The claim also cited alleged pension payments made to employees of the Gunderdehi and Takhatpur Janpad Panchayats, asserting that denying similar benefits to other former staff would breach the principle of equality.

State’s response

The state government countered that the payments made to six officials in the two Janpad Panchayats were not derived from any statutory state pension scheme but were drawn from locally created pension funds administered by the respective Panchayats.

In August 2026, show‑cause notices were issued to the officials who authorized those disbursements, emphasizing that the payments were irregular and lacked legal sanction.

Judicial reasoning

The bench observed that an ad‑hoc payment by a local body cannot, by itself, create a legal right for all other employees. It highlighted that panchayat staff are subject to a separate set of recruitment and service rules and cannot automatically be treated as regular state‑government employees simply because they perform public duties.

While Section 131 of the Panchayat Raj Act protects existing benefits, the court held that it does not create a fresh pension entitlement. The petitioners’ service conditions already incorporate a contributory provident‑fund scheme.

Under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, employees who are part of a contributory provident‑fund framework 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 the arguments presented, the High Court concluded that the former panchayat employees had not established any statutory right to a pension. It reiterated that courts cannot invent a pension scheme where the legislature has provided none.

All 24 petitions were therefore dismissed, leaving the applicants without a legal claim to a government‑backed pension.