Aided school employees lack entitlement to pensionary parity with government teachers absent specific statutory rules.

The petitioner was a teacher at Bharat Mata (Hindi Medium) Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur, a non-government aided institution.

Her service conditions were governed by the CG Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978.

The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the State to extend pensionary benefits to her at par with teachers in the School Education Department and to provide special grants-in-aid for the same.

The State resisted the claim, arguing that neither the Adhiniyam of 1978 nor the Revised Rules for Grant In Aid to Non-Government Educational Institutions, 1979, entitle teachers of aided institutions to pensionary benefits.

1. Whether teachers employed in non-government aided educational institutions are entitled to receive pensionary benefits at par with government school teachers in the absence of specific statutory rules.

CG Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978, and the Revised Rules for Grant In Aid To Non-Government Educational Institutions, 1979.

The precedent set by a coordinate bench in Ashok Kumar Hazra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No. 2789 of 2017), which held that courts cannot direct the State to extend pensionary benefits in the absence of specific rules.

Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187, establishing that the judiciary cannot direct the legislature to enact specific laws.

Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. Headmistress Girls High School (2025) 10 SCC 248, which clarified that aided school teachers’ entitlement to pension is strictly subject to rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any statutory rules that mandate the grant of pension to aided school teachers.

The Court reasoned that while the government provides aid for management and funding, this does not automatically equate the service conditions of aided teachers with government employees.

The Court distinguished the ruling in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade, noting that while it recognized potential entitlement to pension, such entitlement is contingent upon the existence of rules framed under Article 309, which are absent in the current jurisdiction for aided school staff.

The Court determined that it lacks the authority to compel the State to legislate or frame rules to extend such benefits, as the issue is already settled (res integra) by previous decisions.

Following the ratio in Ashok Kumar Hazra, the Court found the petition lacked merit (sans substratum) and dismissed it at the admission stage. No order as to costs was made.