Facts
The twelve petitioners are retired employees of Durga College, Raipur, an institution run by the Durga Education Society and classified as a 100% government-aided college
Source reference: p. 3Following their retirement, the petitioners were granted pensionary benefits equivalent to State Government employees, including periodic enhancements in Dearness Allowance (DA)
Source reference: p. 3The petitioners, aged between 80 and 90 years, allege that they have been denied the "additional pension" benefits mandated by the State Government for pensioners reaching the age milestones of 80, 85, and 90 years
Source reference: p. 3-4Despite submitting a representation to the Additional Director of the Higher Education Department (Respondent No. 2), no decision was rendered
Source reference: p. 4The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a mandamus for the release of these benefits, arrears, interest, and compensation for delayed payment
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant and release of additional pension benefits as per the State Government circulars dated 31.08.2009 and 14.08.2025
Source reference: p. 2, para. 12. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to decide on the petitioners' pending representation within a stipulated timeframe given their advanced age
Source reference: p. 4, para. 2, 4Law Applied
The Court considered the administrative circulars issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh, specifically the circular dated 31.08.2009 and the subsequent circular dated 14.08.2025
Source reference: p. 2-3These circulars establish the entitlement of pensioners to additional pension amounts upon attaining specific age thresholds (80, 85, and 90 years)
Source reference: p. 3-4The Court further applied the principle of administrative responsiveness, requiring authorities to decide on pending representations regarding statutory or circular-based entitlements in a timely manner
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The petitioners argued that as retirees from a 100% government-aided institution, they are legally entitled to the same pensionary benefits as government servants, including age-based additional pension
Source reference: p. 3They highlighted that while they receive standard pension, the specific enhancements promised under the circular dated 14.08.2025 have not been applied
Source reference: p. 3-4The State’s counsel did not dispute the petitioners' status or the existence of the circulars but noted that the matter was currently under administrative consideration via the petitioners' representation
Source reference: p. 4The Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that the petitioners are senior citizens of advanced age (up to 90 years), determined that a prolonged delay in administrative decision-making was unwarranted
Source reference: p. 4Rather than ruling on the merits of the entitlement, the Court focused on the procedural necessity of the respondent authority to finalize the pending representation
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage without a detailed adjudication on the merits of the entitlement
The Court directed Respondent No. 2 (The Additional Director, Higher Education Department) to consider and take a decision on the petitioners’ pending representation in accordance with the law
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4This decision must be rendered expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt or production of the Court's order
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4No order was made regarding damages or interest at this stage
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
LAXMIKANT SHARMAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in