State must reconsider appointment date and qualifying pension service for Shikshakarmis absorbed into government service.

The petitioners, serving as lecturers, teachers, headmasters, librarians and other employees in government schools in Balod District, approached the Chhattisgarh High Court concerning the determination of their appointment date and the reckoning of qualifying service for pensionary purposes.

Their service had commenced as Shikshakarmis and subsequently culminated in absorption into regular government service.

The petitioners contended that the issues raised were identical to those decided in WPS No. 7714 of 2024, Ranjit Banarjee & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., decided on 30 April 2026, and sought disposal of the petition on the same terms.

The State confirmed that the earlier decision had directed a comprehensive reconsideration of the relevant pensionary issues.

Whether the petitioners’ case, concerning the determinative date of appointment and reckoning of qualifying service for pensionary purposes after service as Shikshakarmis and subsequent absorption into regular government service, was identical to the issues considered in WPS No. 7714 of 2024?

Whether the petition should be disposed of by directing the State Government to undertake a comprehensive, reasoned reconsideration of the applicable pensionary issues without adjudicating the parties’ substantive claims on merits?

The Court applied the principle of judicial consistency, holding that an identically situated case may be disposed of in terms of an earlier judgment.

It relied upon the directions issued in WPS No. 7714 of 2024, Ranjit Banarjee & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., read with the directions in WPS No. 777 of 2021, requiring the State to undertake a comprehensive, conscious and reasoned reconsideration of the determinative date of appointment and qualifying service for pensionary purposes.

The reconsideration must account for continuity of service, the nature of duties, the source of salary, administrative and disciplinary control, and the constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the factual and legal issues in the present petition were identical to those considered in WPS No. 7714 of 2024.

Consequently, instead of independently determining whether the petitioners were entitled to count their pre-absorption service for pensionary purposes, the Court adopted the remedial framework laid down in the earlier decision.

That framework required the State to reconsider the entire issue through a clear, uniform and reasoned decision, while leaving open all merits-based objections, including entitlement, applicability of pension rules, delay and laches, estoppel and financial implications.

The Court therefore treated the appropriate relief as a direction for administrative reconsideration rather than a final adjudication of pension entitlement.

The State Government was directed to undertake a comprehensive, conscious and reasoned reconsideration of the determinative date of appointment and the reckoning of qualifying service for pensionary purposes in cases involving service as Shikshakarmis followed by absorption into regular government service.

The resulting decision must be uniform, categorical and supported by a speaking order, and must be taken and communicated within 120 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

No final opinion was expressed on the petitioners’ substantive entitlement or on the validity of the relevant pensionary provisions.