In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State Governments of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh to ensure the payment of pension benefits to pre-2006 retirees under the Sixth Pay Commission scheme. The judgment was delivered by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey in Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 3602 of 2018).
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh, a registered society representing pensioners of government colleges, approached the court challenging the differential treatment meted out to those who retired before January 1, 2006. The primary contention was that retirees post-2006 were extended the benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission, while their counterparts who retired earlier were denied the same, amounting to discrimination.
Previously, the society had filed WP(S) No. 5333 of 2012, which was disposed of on January 25, 2018, with a direction to submit a representation to the authorities. However, their representation was rejected by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, through an order dated February 28, 2018, prompting them to file the present petition.
Key Legal Issues
Equality in Pension Benefits: The primary issue revolved around whether the state government could classify pensioners into two categories—pre-2006 retirees and post-2006 retirees—for the purpose of Sixth Pay Commission benefits.
Constitutional Validity of Cut-Off Dates: The petitioners argued that creating such a classification violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Financial Burden Argument: The State of Chhattisgarh contended that extending benefits to pre-2006 retirees would impose an undue financial burden on the state’s exchequer.
Liability Under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: The state argued that as per Section 49 of the Act, the liability for pension payments should be apportioned between Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
Arguments and Court’s Observations
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Avinash K. Mishra contended that pensioners form a homogeneous class and should not be discriminated against based on an arbitrary cut-off date. He relied on a ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (SCC OnLine MP 4684, 2024), which struck down similar discriminatory pension classifications.
For the Respondents: The State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Deputy Advocate General Vinay Pandey, argued that financial constraints justified the differential treatment. The Union of India, represented by Advocate Bhupendra Pandey, endorsed this argument.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey rejected the state’s argument, relying on a Supreme Court judgment (AIR-ONLINE 2019 SC 407), which ruled that for pension purposes, retirees cannot be classified based on arbitrary cut-off dates. The court emphasized:
“There exists no valid justification for creating two classes of pensioners, as pension is a deferred wage for the service rendered. The classification of pensioners on the basis of retirement date has no rational nexus with the object of pension revision.”
Accordingly, the court ruled that both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh must share the liability of pension payments in accordance with Section 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The state was directed to release revised pensions within 120 days.
