Section 131 preserves existing pension rights but does not create pension entitlement.

The petitioners were employees of various Janpad Panchayats who had been appointed before the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and had subsequently retired.

They challenged orders dated 21 July 2025 denying them pension, relying principally on Section 131 of the 1993 Act and on pension payments made to employees of certain other Janpad Panchayats.

The State contended that the petitioners were Panchayat employees, not State Government servants; their service conditions provided for Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), and no applicable statutory pension scheme existed.

The petitions were heard and decided together.

Whether the petitioners had an enforceable statutory entitlement to pension under Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, or any other applicable service rule or pension scheme.

Whether pension paid to employees of certain other Janpad Panchayats entitled the petitioners to the same benefit on grounds of parity.

Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, is a saving provision: it protects existing pension and retirement benefits of covered permanent employees but does not create a pension entitlement where none previously existed.

The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 apply to qualifying Government servants appointed to civil services or posts connected with State affairs, subject to the exclusions in Rule 2; the Court found that the petitioners were not shown to hold pensionable civil-service posts and were governed by Panchayat service conditions.

The Court also applied the principle that a disputed or unauthorised benefit granted by another authority cannot found a right to equal treatment contrary to the governing law.

Relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Satpal Saini, Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki and V.K. Naswa v. Union of India, it reiterated that courts cannot direct the legislature or executive to create a particular law or policy.

State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava recognises pension as property where an entitlement already exists under the governing law; it does not independently create such entitlement.

The petitioners did not identify a statutory provision or scheme conferring pension on employees of their Janpad Panchayats.

Their service conditions provided for CPF, and the Court found no amendment establishing a pension entitlement; the petitioners also did not controvert the State’s position that they received CPF benefits.

Section 131 could preserve an existing right but could not supply one where the applicable service conditions provided none.

Nor did pension payments made by Janpad Panchayats Gunderdehi and Takhatpur establish a general statutory entitlement: those payments came from locally constituted funds, and their legality was under examination by the State.

The cited pension and equality principles therefore did not support relief in the absence of an established entitlement.

Finding no basis to interfere with the challenged orders, it dismissed all the connected writ petitions, with no order as to costs.