Petitions filed by former Panchayat workers

The Chhattisgarh High Court, sitting as a single bench under Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, considered 24 petitions lodged by ex‑employees of several Janpad Panchayats. The petitioners, among them Urmila Panigrahi, argued that long‑standing service in the Panchayat system should qualify them for a government‑backed pension.

They anchored their claim on Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, interpreting it as a safeguard that extends salary, allowances and retirement benefits—including pension—to every Panchayat worker.

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

State’s response

The state government countered that the disbursements made to six officials in those two Janpad Panchayats were not derived from any statutory, state‑level pension scheme. Instead, the amounts originated from locally created pension funds administered by the respective Panchayats.

In August 2026, the government issued show‑cause notices to the officials responsible for the payments, emphasizing that the disbursements were irregular and lacked legal sanction.

Judicial assessment

The bench observed that ad‑hoc payments by a local body cannot, by themselves, generate a universal 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 court held that 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 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.

Verdict

After weighing the relevant statutes, service rules, and arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded that the retired Panchayat employees had not established any statutory right to a pension. It reiterated that courts cannot create a pension scheme where the legislature has provided none.

Accordingly, all 24 petitions were dismissed, leaving the former Panchayat staff without a legal claim to a government‑backed pension.