Background of the petitions

The Chhattisgarh High Court, sitting as a single bench under Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, examined 24 petitions filed by former employees of various Janpad Panchayats. The petitioners, including Urmila Panigrahi, contended that after years of service in the panchayat system they were entitled to a government pension.

Their argument centred on Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, which they interpreted as a protective clause extending existing salary, allowances and retirement benefits – pension included – to all panchayat workers.

They also cited instances where staff of the Gunderdehi and Takhatpur Janpad Panchayats were allegedly receiving pension payments, claiming that denying the same benefit to similarly situated employees violated the principle of equality.

State government’s counter‑argument

The state government opposed the petitions, clarifying that the payments made to six officials in the two Janpad Panchayats did not stem from any statutory state‑level pension scheme. Instead, the amounts were drawn from locally created pension funds managed by the respective Panchayats.

In August 2026, the government issued show‑cause notices to the officials responsible for those payments, underscoring that the disbursements were irregular and not sanctioned by law.

Judicial analysis

The court observed that an ad‑hoc payment by a local body cannot, by itself, generate a legal entitlement for all other employees. It stressed that panchayat staff are governed by distinct recruitment and service rules and cannot automatically be treated as regular state‑government employees simply because they perform public functions.

Section 131 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the bench noted, safeguards existing benefits but does not create a new pension right. The petitioners’ service conditions, the court found, already provide for a contributory provident‑fund scheme.

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

Outcome

Having weighed the applicable statutes, service rules, and the arguments of both sides, the High Court concluded that the retired panchayat employees had not demonstrated any statutory right to a pension. It reiterated that courts cannot fashion a pension scheme where the legislature has provided none.

Consequently, all 24 petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioners without a legal claim to government‑backed pension benefits.