Revision of pension and dearness relief cannot be claimed beyond the specific scope of statutory regulations.

The Appellant, a retired Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh (retired 30.06.2013), was subsequently appointed as a Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) on 02.09.2013

He also served as Acting Chairman before completing his tenure on 13.06.2015

Post-retirement from the Commission, he was granted a fixed pension of ₹1,646 per month under the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Aayog (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2001, in addition to his parent department pension

The Appellant filed a writ petition (WPS No. 6183/2021) seeking dearness relief and periodic revision of this additional pension, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 06.04.2026

The present intra-court appeal challenges that dismissal.

1. Whether a retired Government servant appointed as a Member of the State Public Service Commission is entitled to claim Dearness Relief and periodic revision of the pension earned during their tenure at the Commission, absent express statutory provisions.

2. Whether the constitutional embargo under Article 319 or the provisions for non-government source members under Regulation 9(6) create an enforceable right for pension revision for members governed by Regulation 8.

The Court primarily applied the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Aayog (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2001, specifically Regulation 8, which governs pension for members from Government service and prescribes a maximum ceiling to prevent "double enrichment"

It relied on the principle that pensionary benefits are statutory rights and cannot be claimed dehors (outside) the statutory rules

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine of judicial restraint, holding that under Article 226, the Court cannot rewrite statutory provisions or create financial entitlements where the rule-making authority has not provided them

Reference was also made to Article 319 of the Constitution of India regarding the restriction on further employment

The Court reasoned that the Appellant’s rights are strictly governed by the 2001 Regulations. Regulation 8(3) sets a "cap" on the combined pension to maintain balance and prevent excessive accumulation from two different tenures

The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that revisions in the "ceiling amount" under Regulation 8(3) automatically entitle a retiree to periodic revisions or Dearness Relief, noting that the regulations do not expressly provide for such relief for this specific class of pensioners

The Court further clarified that Regulation 9(6), which allows Dearness Relief for members from non-government sources, cannot be applied to the Appellant because he is governed by the distinct framework of Regulation 8 for former government servants

Finally, the Court noted that the Appellant already receives a revised pension from his parent department, and since the Commission's pension is a fixed entitlement under the specific service conditions he accepted, there was no legal basis for a mandamus to grant additional benefits

It held that the Appellant is not entitled to Dearness Relief or revision of the CGPSC pension as the 2001 Regulations do not provide for it

The Court concluded that the respondents acted strictly within the statutory framework and that judicial review cannot be used to substitute the legislative intent or create financial liabilities not envisaged by the law

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of