Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 06.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: 1. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur District Raipur C.G.; 2. Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 02, Municipal Corporation Raipur District Raipur C.G.
  • Respondents: Smt. Tesu (deceased) through legal representatives, namely:
  • (A) Smt. Reshama, widow of Late Manoj Rexel, aged about 55 years, daughter‑in‑law of Late Smt. Tesu, residing behind Video World, Modhapara, Raipur.
  • (B) Ku. Bhavana, daughter of Late Manoj Rexel, aged about 28 years, mother Smt. Reshama, same address.
  • (C) Amit, son of Late Manoj Rexel, aged about 24 years, mother Smt. Reshama, same address.
  • (D) Abhishek, son of Late Manoj Rexel, aged about 17 years, mother Smt. Reshama, minor (twin), represented by natural guardian mother Smt. Reshama.
  • (E) Sadhna, daughter of Late Manoj Rexel, aged about 17 years, mother Smt. Reshma, minor (twin), represented by natural guardian mother Smt. Reshama.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Review petition (REVP No. 193 of 2026) filed to modify the order dated 21.04.2026 passed in WPS No. 4351 of 2018, which dealt with pension benefits of the employee (respondent No. 1).
  • Background: The original order in WPS No. 4351/2018 was said to be covered by a later judgment of the High Court in a batch of writ petitions, the leading case being WPS No. 10696 of 2019. The order is also subject matter of SLP (C) No. 8677‑8678 of 2023 pending before the Supreme Court; the parties noted that if the Supreme Court decides in favour of the employees, the employer must extend additional pension benefits.
  • Petitioners’ Argument (Advocate Pankaj Agrawal): Asserted that respondent No. 1 (the employee) was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and had not completed ten years of service; therefore, he was not entitled to any pensionary benefits. The petitioners claimed this fact was not raised during the hearing of WPS No. 4351/2018 and sought dismissal of the original order.
  • Respondents’ Argument (Advocate Pooja Sinha): Contended that the parties were duly represented, a bipartite order was passed, and no objection regarding CPF membership or service period was raised at the time of the original hearing. She argued there is no apparent mistake on the record, and the review petition should be dismissed.
  • Court’s Observations: The bench noted that during the hearing of WPS No. 4351/2018, no objection was raised concerning the employee’s CPF membership or the ten‑year service requirement. The fact was disclosed for the first time through this review petition. The court found no apparent mistake or error on the face of the record.

Final Outcome

  • The review petition is deemed not tenable and is dismissed by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey.

Topics: Pension, Court Decision