Authorities must consider counting earlier service for pensionary benefits where appointment terms preserve such service.

The 26 petitioners were retired government teachers and headmasters who sought counting of their services from the initial date of appointment for the purpose of notional seniority and consequential benefits under the State circular dated 5 July 2007.

They also sought consideration of their claim in light of the High Court’s decision in Shyam Lal Nayak & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 834 of 2018, decided on 6 January 2025.

The petitioners contended that the issues raised had already been considered in the identical matter of Bharat Lal Chandra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPS No. 3917 of 2026, decided on 7 May 2026, and requested disposal on the same terms.

The State had no objection to such disposal.

Whether the petitioners’ earlier services were liable to be considered for notional seniority and pensionary benefits in terms of the applicable appointment conditions and the circular dated 5 July 2007?

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to submit fresh representations, requiring the competent authorities to decide their claims in light of the decision in Shyam Lal Nayak?

The Court applied the principles contained in the State circular dated 5 July 2007 concerning recognition of past service for notional seniority and related benefits.

It relied on Shyam Lal Nayak & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein the Court held that an appointment clause recognising earlier service, while excluding salary for that period, indicated that such service could be counted for other purposes, including pensionary benefits; any rejection of the claim without considering that clause was unsustainable.

The Court also followed the coordinate decision in Bharat Lal Chandra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., which directed the petitioners to submit fresh representations and required the authorities to decide them after verification of facts and in light of Shyam Lal Nayak.

The Court found that the facts and legal issues in the present petition were identical to those decided in Bharat Lal Chandra.

In Shyam Lal Nayak, the Court had interpreted the relevant appointment order as recognising earlier service for purposes other than salary and had directed reconsideration of pensionary claims accordingly.

Since the State raised no objection to application of the same directions, the Court adopted the approach in Bharat Lal Chandra and permitted the petitioners to submit fresh representations before the competent authorities.

The authorities were required to verify the petitioners’ individual facts and decide the claims in accordance with Shyam Lal Nayak within three months of receiving the representations.

The petitioners were permitted to submit fresh representations concerning their claims, including counting of earlier service for notional seniority and pensionary benefits, before respondents 2 and 3.

The competent authorities were directed to consider and decide the representations, after factual verification and in light of Shyam Lal Nayak, within three months from receipt of the order/representations.