The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant verdict, dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by retired staff from fully aided educational institutions who were seeking pension benefits equivalent to those received by government school employees.
Court's Firm Stance on Pension as a Right
Presiding over the case, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru of a Single Bench categorically stated that a pension is not an automatic or incidental benefit that arises simply from an institution receiving a grant-in-aid. The court emphasized that such a benefit must be expressly provided for under a statutory rule, a specific scheme, or a clear policy decision of the State government.
The petitioners, which included retired principals, lecturers, teachers, and non-teaching staff, had argued that they performed duties identical to government school staff and received salaries on par with them under the grant-in-aid framework. They contended that denying them a pension amounted to hostile discrimination, violating their rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Their core argument was that decades of service in publicly funded institutions entitled them to post-retirement social security.
State Government's Opposition and Legal Reasoning
Opposing the claim, the State Government submitted a clear distinction. It argued that the petitioners were employees of privately managed institutions that merely received aid, and were not government servants. The state clarified that the object of providing 100% grant-in-aid is confined to ensuring the smooth functioning of these institutions and the payment of salaries. This financial support, they argued, does not automatically extend to covering pensionary liabilities.
The State further pointed out a crucial legal gap: no existing statute, rule, or government notification provides for a pension to employees of aided schools. The court was also reminded of earlier administrative decisions by the School Education Department from 2009, where similar demands for pensions were rejected, showing a consistent policy stand.
Judicial Restraint and Policy Domain Upheld
Accepting the State's submissions, the High Court held a pivotal legal position. It ruled that the mere fact of an institution receiving full financial aid does not alter the fundamental legal character of the employer-employee relationship. The employees remained staff of private managements, not the state.
The court underscored the principle of separation of powers, clarifying that matters relating to the creation of a pension scheme fall squarely within the domain of policy-making by the legislature and executive. The judiciary, it stated, cannot issue a mandamus (a judicial command) directing these branches to frame a particular law or scheme.
Concluding the matter, the High Court observed that unless and until the State formulates a specific policy or statutory provision providing pensionary benefits to employees of 100% aided schools, no enforceable legal right can be claimed. Counsel Nelson Panna appeared for the respective respondent schools in the case.
