Petition background

A single‑judge bench headed by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined 24 petitions filed by former workers of several Janpad Panchayats. The claimants, among them Urmila Panigrahi, argued that long‑term service in the panchayat system should qualify them for a government‑backed pension.

Their case leaned on Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, which they read as a safeguard extending existing salaries, allowances and retirement benefits—including pension—to every panchayat employee.

They also pointed to alleged pension payouts made to staff of the Gunderdehi and Takhatpur Janpad Panchayats, asserting that denying a similar benefit to similarly situated workers breached the principle of equality.

State’s rebuttal

The state government contested the petitions, explaining that the amounts 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, the government issued show‑cause notices to the officials who authorised those payments, emphasizing that the disbursements were irregular and lacked legal sanction.

Court’s analysis

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

While Section 131 of the Panchayat Raj Act protects existing benefits, the bench 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 scheme are excluded from the statutory government pension. 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 of both sides, the High Court concluded that the former panchayat employees had not established any legal right to a pension. It reiterated that courts cannot create a pension scheme where the legislature has provided none.

Consequently, all 24 petitions were dismissed, leaving the claimants without a statutory claim to government‑funded pension benefits.