Chhattisgarh High Court denies Panchayat staff pension parity, citing limits on courts directing policy

Dismissing a batch of writ petitions by retired employees of Janpad Panchayats (lead matter: Urmila Panigrahi and others v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 11820 of 2025, with nine connected matters), the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur held that Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is only a saving clause that protects pension rights an employee already held before the Adhiniyam came into force; it does not itself create a fresh right to pension. The petitioners, employed in the Panchayat establishment, were covered by a Contributory Provident Fund scheme, not by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which apply only to "Government servants" and not to Panchayat employees.

The Court rejected a claim to parity under Article 14 with a small number of employees of two other Janpad Panchayats who had been paid pension, noting those payments were made under disputed internal resolutions themselves subject to State show-cause notices, and so could not found an enforceable right. Declining to direct the State to extend a pension scheme to Panchayat staff, the Court invoked the separation of powers, holding that courts must be circumspect about directing the executive to adopt a particular policy or the legislature to enact a law in a particular manner, citing State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satpal Saini and Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India among other Supreme Court authorities.