1

CGHC010156982026 2026:CGHC:30135-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WA No. 609 of 2026

1 - Vipin Kumar Choubey S/o Surendra Prasad Choubey Aged About 49

Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Girls Middle School,

Bhaiyathan, Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ........ (Petitioner No.

01)

2 - Banshi Lal Singh S/o Ramrup Ram Aged About 58 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Girls Middle School, Bhaiyathan, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.)......... ( Petitioner No. 02)

3 - Kamleshwar Prasad Kaiwarty S/o Ganga Ram Kaiwarty Aged About 52

Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Ragda,

Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.)......... (Petitioner No. 10)

4 - Kamla Prasad Kushwaha S/o Shri Ram Dulare Kushwaha Aged About 57

Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Baskar,

Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) .......... ( Petitioner No. 13 )

5 - Devchandra Singh S/o Harinandan Singh Aged About 56 Years Presently

Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Gokulpur, Block

Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.).......... ( Petitioner No. 16)

6 - Rajaram Singh S/o Shri Amarheet Singh Aged About 55 Years Presently

Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Chhatapara Surta, Block

Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.)...... ( Petitioner No. 18)

7 - Sant Kumar Prajapati S/o Rijhan Ram Aged About 58 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Surta, Block

Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.)..... ( Petitioner No. 21)

8 - Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Brijlal Aged About 57 Years Presently Working

As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Narmadapara Bhuneshwar, Block

Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 23)

9 - Samar Jeet Ravi S/o Deoman Ram Aged About 49 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Narmadapara

Bhuneshwar, Block Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner

No. 25)

10 - Kamla Kushwaha D/o Gayatri Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 48 Years

2

Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Narmadapara

Bhuneshwar, Block Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner

No. 26)

11 - Nand Kumar Singh S/o Ramjee Aged About 52 Years Presently Working

As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Dawana, Block Ramanujnagar,

District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 27)

12 - Radhika Sharan Singh S/o Jangbhadur Singh Aged About 54 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Chingradand,

Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 31)

13 - Kameshwar Prasad Singh S/o Nandlal Aged About 52 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Dawankara, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 33)

14 - Brij Kumar Sonpakar S/o Kaval Sai Aged About 53 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Chingradand, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 36)

15 - Anju Yadav W/o Gulshan Yadav Aged About 46 Years Presently Working

As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Bhagatpara Kerta, Block Pratappur,

District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 38)

16 - Birendra Kumar Singh S/o Pancham Ram Aged About 53 Years

Presently Working As Head Master (Middle School) At Govt. Middle School,

Padipa, Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 40)

17 - Smt. Sumitri Singh W/o Birendra Kumar Singh Aged About 47 Years

Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Kanya Primary

School, Madidand, Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner

No. 41)

18 - Manijar Ram Dhurway S/o Bairagi Ram Aged About 55 Years Presently

Working As Head Master (Middle School) At Govt. Middle School, Goura,

Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 42)

19 - Smt. Mokshmati Singh W/o Manijar Ram Dhurway Aged About 40 Years

Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Girls Ashram,

Madidand, Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 43)

20 - Anil Kumar Singh S/o Pancham Ram Aged About 51 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Bhagatpara, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 45)

21 - Lal Sai Singh S/o Dhansai Aged About 54 Years Presently Working As

Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Madidand, Block Pratappur, District

Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 46)

22 - Meena Preety Kujur W/o Chrishtopher Kujur Aged About 50 Years

Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Kerta, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 47)

3

23 - Neelmani Ekka W/o Pradeep Kumar Lakra Aged About 40 Years

Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Karri,

Block Odgi, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 51)

24 - Bharat Singh S/o Nan Babu Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As

Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Chhattarpur, Block Surajpur, District

Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 53)

25 - Mungeshwar Singh S/o Bir Bahadur Singh Aged About 36 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School, Bhagatpara

(Kerta), Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 54)

26 - Ku. Sandhya Tamrkar D/o Shri Bihari Lal Tamrkar Aged About 46 Years

Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Chhattarpur,

Block Surajpur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)........ ( Petitioner No. 56)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School

Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District

Raipur, (C.G.)

2 - The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development,

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,

(C.G.)

3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,

Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.)

4 - Commissioner Cum Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar, Naya

Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.)

5 - District Education Officer Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (C.G.)

6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (C.G.)

7 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur, District- Surajpur,

(C.G.)

8 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur,

(C.G.)

9 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Odgi, District- Surajpur, (C.G.)

10 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Ramanujnagar, District-

Surajpur, (C.G.)

11 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, District- Surajpur,

(C.G.)

12 - Block Education Officer Surajpur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)

4

13 - Block Education Officer Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.)

14 - Block Education Officer Odgi, District Surajpur, (C.G.)

15 - Block Education Officer Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.)

16 - Block Education Officer Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)

17 - Ramdev Ram Paikra S/o Sumansai Aged About 50 Years Presently

Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Bhanwarkhoh, Block Odgi,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 03)

18 - Mohan Lal Rajwade S/o Late Gopal Ram Rajwade Aged About 60 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Bandhpara, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 04)

19 - Ramkishor Yadav S/o Anant Ram Aged About 50 Years Presently

Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Chopan, Block Bhaiyathan,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 05)

20 - Ram Bai Sori W/o Devendra Kumar Sori Aged About 50 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Chopan, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 06)

21 - Hari Prasad Yadav S/o Late Raghunath Yadav Aged About 52 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Ragda, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 07)

22 - Nitin Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Bhagat Sharma Aged About 45 Years

Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Chopan, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 08)

23 - Arun Kumar Kushwaha S/o Ramnath Ram Aged About 55 Years

Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Ragda, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 09)

24 - Shyama Devi Singh W/o Narendra Kumar Singh Aged About 58 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School, Chainpur, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 11)

25 - Jaswant Kumar Shrivastava S/o Harishankar Lal Shrivastava Aged About

51 Years Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School,

Mahuwapara, Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No.

12)

26 - Jageshwar Singh S/o Gambheera Sai Aged About 50 Years Presently

Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Palma, Block Bhaiyathan,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 14)

27 - Bifaiya Singh S/o Lalu Ram Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As

Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Karoundamuda, Block Bhaiyathan,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 15)

5

28 - Jalodri Singh S/o Tilakram Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As

Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Markarbandha, Block Ramanujnagar,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 17)

29 - Anand Ram Sahu S/o Shri Narmada Prasad Sahu Aged About 57 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Pampanagar,

Block Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 19)

30 - Kamla Devi D/o Keshav Prasad Aged About 54 Years Presently Working

As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Shivpur, Block Ramanujnagar,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 20)

31 - Bansh Gopal Singh S/o Shankar Prasad Aged About 50 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Pampanagar, Block

Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 22)

32 - Smt. Neela Sonwani W/o Mr. Shivprasad Sonwani Aged About 47 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Vishnupur, Block

Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 24)

33 - Smt. Indira Pandey W/o Mr. Haldhar Prasad Pandey Aged About 48

Years Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Anrokha,

Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 28)

34 - Smt. Savita Tiwari W/o Mr. Suryapal Tiwari Aged About 50 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School, Anrokha, Block

Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 29)

35 - Pushpalata Tiwari W/o Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 58 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Domhat, Block Pratappur,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 30)

36 - Rambha Jaiswal D/o Chhotelal Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Gotgawan, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 32)

37 - Smt. Tosh Singh W/o Radhika Sharan Singh Aged About 58 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School, Dodhipara

(Hariharpur), Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No.

34)

38 - Smt. Suchitra Mehta W/o Shri Mahendra Prasad Mehta Aged About 54

Years Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Middle School, Gotgavan,

Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 35)

39 - Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Dayakishun Aged About 62 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Chhirmahuva, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 37)

40 - Lalita Rajwade W/o Mukesh Kumar Aged About 34 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Kerta, Block Pratappur,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 39)

6

41 - Lalit Kumar Chakradhari S/o Chandu Ram Aged About 59 Years

Presently Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School, Majhapara,

Block Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 44)

42 - Neelima Minj W/o Sandeep Panna Aged About 43 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Dharampur, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 48)

43 - Nirmala Kujur W/o Anil Lakra Aged About 51 Years Presently Working As

Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Kerta, Block Pratappur, District

Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 49)

44 - Komal Kant Singh S/o Ashok Kumar Singh Aged About 37 Years

Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Koteya, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 50)

45 - Vikash Lata Toppo W/o Syldesper Toppo Aged About 55 Years Presently

Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Barbaspur, Block

Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 52)

46 - Nageshwar Singh S/o Nohar Sai Aged About 38 Years Presently Working

As Head Master At Govt. Primary School, Junadhodhi, Block Surajpur,

District Surajpur, (C.G.) ....... (Petitioner No. 55)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) :Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate. General.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

16/07 /2026

1 Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the

appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General,

appearing for the Respondent/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for

condonation of delay of 75 days in preferring the present appeal.

2 On due consideration the grounds assigned in the application (I.A.

No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 75 days in preferring the present writ

appeal is hereby condoned.

7

3 The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2025

passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.9238/2025,

whereby the writ petition filed by petitioners was dismissed.

4 Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue

involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this

Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2026 in Writ Appeal No.191/2026, whereby

this Court has held as under:-

“16. The entire controversy revolved around the Circular

dated 10.03.2017 issued by the State Government with

respect to the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to the

Assistant Teachers. It is necessary to notice here the

circular dated 10.03.2017, which reads as under:

छत्तीसगढ़शासन

सामान्य प्रशासनविभाग

मं

त्रालय

महानदीभवन

,

नयारायप्र

क्रमांक एफ

10-1/2008/1-3

नयारायपुरदिनांक

10/03/2017

प्र

ति

,

शासनकेसमस्तविभाग

,

अध्यक्ष,

छत्तीसगढ़राजस्वमण्डल

, बि

लासपुर

समस्तविभागाध्यक्ष

,

समस्तसंभागायुक्त

समस्तकलेक्टर्स

,

छ

त्तीसगढ़

विषय

:-

सहायकशिक्षकोंकोकमोन्नतिवेतनमान प्रदायकिएजाने

बा

बत्।

संदर्भ

:-

इसविभागकासमसंख्यकपरिपत्रदिनांक

24.04.2006.

-00-

इसविभागकेसंदर्भितपरिपत्रद्वाराशिक्षकसंवर्गमेंसहायक

शि

क्षक

,

शिक्षकतथाव्याख्याताकोसामान्य प्रशासनविभागके

परिपत्रकमांक एफ

1-1/1/वे

आप्र

/99, दि

नांक

17.03.1999/19.04.1999

मेंनिहितशर्तोंकेअध्यधीन प्रथन

कमोन्नति

12

वर्षबादतथाद्वितीय क्रमोन्नति

24

वर्षबादप्रदान

कियागयाहै।वित्तविभागकेज्ञापन कमांक

216/सी-

2802/10/वि

त्त

/नि

यम

/धा

र

,

दिनांक

04.08.2010 (

वित्तनिर्देश

32/2010)

द्वाराक्रमोन्नतियोजनाकोसंशोधितकरशिक्षकतथा

व्याख्यातासंवर्गकोप्रथमउच्चतरसमयमानवेतनमान

10 व

र्ष

बादएवंद्वितीय उच्चतरसमयमानवेतनमान

20

वर्षबाददेनेका

निर्णयलियागयाहै।

8

2/

अतएवउपरोक्तनिर्णयकेपरिप्रेक्ष्यमेंराज्यशासनद्वारानिर्णय

लियागयाहैकिइसविभागकेसंदर्भितपरिपत्रदिनांक

24.04.2006

कीकंडिका

-2

में

"

सहायकशिक्षक

"

कोप्रथम

कमोन्नति

10

वर्षबादएवंद्वितीय क्रमोन्नति

20

वर्षबादप्रदानकी

जा

ए।

3/

उपरोक्तनिर्णयकेसंबंधमेंयहस्पष्टकियाजाताहैकि

कमोन्नतिकीदेयतातिथिकेअनुसारकेवलकाल्पनिकवेतन

निर्धारणकियाजाएगाएवंकिसीप्रकारकेएरियर्सदेय नहींहोंगे।

4/

यहआदेशवित्तविभागकेकम्प्यूटरकमांक एफ

-2017-01-

01093

दिनांक

09.02.2017

द्वारादीगई सहमतिकेआधारपर

जारीकियागयाहै।

छत्तीसगढ़केराज्यपालकेनामसे

तथाआदेशानुसार

,

(ए

म

.आ

र

.ठो

कूर

)

अवरसचिव

,

छत्तीसगढ़शासन

सामान्य प्रशासनविभाग

17. From perusal of the contents of the circular

dated 10.03.2017, it is quite vivid that the

Assistant Teachers, who were in Government

service, are to be granted first Kramonnati

Vetanman after 10 years of their service and

second Kromonnati Vetanman after 20 years of

their service, and the teachers and lecturers are

to be granted first time-bound pay scale after 10

years of service and second time-bound pay

scale after 20 years of service.

18. From Para-8.8 of the writ petition,

undisputedly the petitioners have been appointed

to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III/Grade-II

between the period of 2008 and 2013. It is also

relevant to notice here paragraph 8.8 of the writ

petition, which reads as follows:

“8.8 Between 2008-2013, the Chief

Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat

appointed the Petitioners in the post of

Assistant Teacher Shikshakarmi

Grade-3/Teacher- Shikshakarmi Grade 2.

After completion of 2 years from the date

of joining, the Petitionerswho were

appointed as Assistant Teachers were

Regularization by the Chief Executive

Officer of Janpad Panchayat and Teachers

were Regularization by the Chief Executive

Officer of Zila Panchayat.”

9

19. When the petitioners in the present writ petition

were appointed between 2008 and 2013, they had

not completed 10 years of their service on the date

when the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was issued.

20. From a bare perusal of the Circular dated

10.03.2017, it is abundantly clear that the said

circular does not deal with or extend benefits to

the Teachers belonging to the Panchayat Cadre,

including Shiksha Karmi. The circular specifically

provides for the grant of first-time-bound pay scale

and second-time-bound pay scale to regular

Government employees, in accordance with the

earlier circulars issued by the State Government

dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999.

21. In the present case, the petitioners were

working as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat

Department, and it is an undisputed position that

Shiksha Karmi were not employees of the State

Government until their absorption into the School

Education Department pursuant to the policy

decision of the State Government dated

30.06.2018. Before such absorption, their

appointment, service conditions, and other

benefits were governed by the statutory framework

applicable to Panchayat employees, and not by

the rules or circulars applicable to State

Government employees.

22. Therefore, since the petitioners were

admittedly the employees of the Panchayat

Department before the absorption policy came into

force, they cannot claim the status of a

Government Servant for the purpose of seeking

the benefit of time-bound pay scale or Kramonnati

Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017.

Their service conditions were governed by the

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi

(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,

2007, the Rules of 2012, or any other rules framed

under Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat

Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which regulate the service

conditions of Panchayat employees.

23. Thus, in view of the clear distinction between

State Government employees and Panchayat

cadre employees, the petitioners cannot derive

10

any benefit from the Circular dated 10.03.2017 or

the earlier circulars dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999,

as those circulars apply solely to Government

servants of the State, and not to employees

appointed under the Panchayat department.

24. The distinguishable feature of the case of Smt.

Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) are that

she was appointed to the post of Assistant

Teacher vide order dated 29.07.2005 and was

posted at Government Primary School,

Narayanpur. On 01.07.2011, the State

Government, Department of Finance and Planning

issued a Circular regarding Kramonnati Vetanman

to the employees. The Department of Panchayat

and Rural Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, also

issued a Circular dated 02.11.2011 regarding

Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 10 years

of service. On 17.05.2013, the department of

Panchayat and Rural Development, Chhattisgarh,

Raipur issued another circular with respect to the

equalisation of pay scale between Government

Teachers and Teacher Panchayat after completion

of 08 years of their services. Further, vide circular

dated 14.11.2014, the earlier circular dated

02.11.2011 was cancelled with effect from

01.05.2013. The petitioner was granted the benefit

of Kramonnati Vetanman vide order dated

15.01.2020, but the said order was cancelled vide

order dated 29.02.2020 on the ground that the

Circular dated 02.11.2011 has already been

cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013 vide order

dated 14.11.2014, and since the petitioner, who

has not completed 10 years of her service in the

cadre, was not entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman.

While passing the order dated 15.01.2020, the

authorities had considered the circulars dated

07.03.2019, 06.04.2019, and granted Kramonnati

Vetanman to Sona Sahu with effect from

01.08.2015 and thereafter the concerned authority

sou motu re-considered the order dated

15.01.2020 and passed the order on 29.02.2020,

by which the benefit granted to Smt. Sona Sahu

was cancelled. While considering the matter, the

concerned authority had not consider the circular

dated 10.03.2017 and 07.03.2019. In the peculiar

facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal

11

No. 261/2023) was granted the benefit of

Kramonnati Vetanman, vide order dated

28.02.2024, passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023.

The challenge of the order dated 28.02.2024

passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023, and Review

Petition No. 147/2024 is dismissed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2025,

passed in SLP (C) Diary No. 58525/2024, by

observing that in the peculiar facts of the case of

Smt. Sona Sahu, no interference is called for, and

accordingly, the SLP(C) was dismissed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

25. In the present case, the petitioners are

appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi by the

Panchayat Department. They were not

government employees till 2018, when their

services were absorbed by the school education

department. Therefore, they cannot claim parity

and benefit at par as has been granted to Smt.

Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023).

26. Further, Clauses 4 and 5 of the absorption

order dated 30.06.2018 clearly restrict the grant of

any benefit to the employees of the Panchayat

Department whose services have been absorbed

with the school education department for the

benefit of arrears prior to 01.07.2018. Clauses 4

and 5 of the absorption order dated read as under:

“4/

शिक्षक

(एल.बी.)

संवर्गकोदेयसमस्तलाभके

लियेसेवाकीगणनासंविलियनदिनाँक

01 जु

लाई

2018

सेकीजायेगी।

5/

दिनाँक

01

जुलाई

2018

केपूर्वकीअवधिकेलिये

किसीभीप्रकारकेएरियर्सकीपात्रतानहींहोगी।

"

27. On 06.04.2019, the State Government School

Education Department issued another Circular

with respect to the further proceedings under the

Rules of 2019, in which it has been provided that:

"

इसविभागद्वाराजारीसंविलियननिर्देशकमांक एक

दिनांक

30.06.2018

कीकंडिका

5

मेंस्पष्ट उल्लेखित

है,

किदिनांक

01.07.2018

केपूर्वकीअवधिकेलिए

किसीभीप्रकारकेएरियर्सकीपात्रतानहीहोगी

अर्थातपूर्वकेएरियर्सस्कूलशिक्षाविभागद्वारादेय

नहींहोंगे।पूर्वमेंशिक्षक

(पं

चायत

/

नगरीयनिकाय

)

12

संवर्गकेकर्मचारी

,

जोवर्तमानमेंशिक्षक एल

.बी. सं

वर्ग

केरूपमेंकार्यरतहैं

,

केसंविलियनपूर्वकीअवधिके

लंबित स्वत्वोंकाभुगतानपात्रतानुसारसंबंधितविभाग

द्वाराहीकियाजायेगा।

"

28. The present writ appeal has been filed by the

appellants/petitioners seeking the benefit of

Kramonnati under the Circular dated 10.03.2017,

claiming parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu

(Writ Appeal No. 261/2023). The petitioners were

initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the

Panchayat Department between 2008 and 2013,

and their services were regularized by the order

passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the

respective Janpad and Zila Panchayats. They

continued to serve under the Panchayat

department till 2018, when they were absorbed

into the School Education Department pursuant to

the State Government policy dated 30.06.2018.

Their service prior to absorption was governed by

the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules,

2007, and subsequent rules framed under the

Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

29. The Circular dated 10.03.2017, on which the

petitioners rely, specifically applies to Assistant

Teachers under the School Education Department

who have completed 10 years of service. In

contrast, the petitioners’ service as Shiksha Karmi

under the Panchayat department cannot be

treated as equivalent to service under the School

Education Department. The factual distinction is

material, and the principles of parity require that

employees claiming equal treatment must be

similarly situated in all material aspects, which is

not the case here.

30. This has consistently held in WP(S) No.

208/2012, WP(S) No. 2530/2017, WP(S) No.

10335/2019, WP(S) No. 1021/2021, and WP(S)

No. 3369/2021 that the services of the Shiksha

Karmi governed by Panchayat rules are not

entitled to pay scales or other benefits applicable

to teachers of the School Education Department.

The learned Single Judge rightly distinguished the

case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No.

261/2023), after independently examining the

13

entitlement of the petitioners, concluded that the

Circular dated 10.03.2017 does not apply to their

service.

31. The learned Single Judge after adverting and

considering the entire facts and circumstances of

the case, elaborately considered various

judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Rohan Vijay Nahar and Others v.

The State of Maharashtra and Others 2025

INSC 1296, State of Punjab and Others vs.

Jagjit Singh and Others, 2017 (1) SCC 148,

Khoday Distiliaries Limited (Now known as

Khoday India Limited) and Others vs. Shree

Mahadeshwara Shahkara Sakkare Karkhane

Limited Kollegal 2019 (4) SCC 376 and Ravi

Prakash Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh order

dated 08-09-2025 passed learned Single Judge of

this Court in WPS No. 10335/2019, decided the

writ petition filed by the writ appellants/petitioners

in which, we do not find perversity or infirmity. The

consideration of the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order is well merited based on a proper

appreciation of the facts and law applicable to the

case.

32. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice

that the same has been rendered by the learned

Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons.

In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually

warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed.

Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ

petition by the impugned order has adverted to all

the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in

the impugned order.”

5 With respect to the employees who entered service on or after 2008,

their writ appeals have been decided in the aforesaid Writ Appeal No.

191/2026. So far as the employees who entered service prior to 2008

are concerned, their writ appeals have been decided by this Court in

Writ Appeal No. 193/2026. In the present writ appeal as well as in the

writ petition, the petitioners have not specifically pleaded the dates of

14

their entry into service. However, from the documents of appointment

annexed with the writ petition as, it transpires that some of the

petitioners were appointed after 2008, while some were appointed prior

to 2008. Therefore, the case of the writ appellants who were appointed

prior to 2008 has been considered in light of the fact that Writ Appeal

No. 193/2026 has already been decided by this Court vide order dated

13.03.2026, and their cases are similar to those of the present writ

appellants. Accordingly, relevant portions of the order passed in Writ

Appeal No. 193/2026 are also taken into consideration while deciding

the present appeal, which are as under:

“20. When the petitioners in the present writ

petition were appointed between 2008 and 2013,

they had not completed 10 years of their service

on the date when the Circular dated 10.03.2017

was issued.

21. From a bare perusal of the Circular dated

10.03.2017, it is abundantly clear that the said

circular does not deal with or extend benefits to

the Teachers belonging to the Panchayat Cadre,

including Shiksha Karmi. The circular specifically

provides for the grant of first-time-bound pay scale

and second-time-bound pay scale to regular

Government employees, in accordance with the

earlier circulars issued by the State Government

dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999.

22. In the present case, the petitioners were

working as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat

Department, and the Shiksha Karmi were not the

employees of the State Government until their

absorption into the School Education Department

pursuant to the policy decision of the State

Government dated 30.06.2018. Before such

absorption, their appointment, service conditions,

and other benefits were governed by the statutory

framework applicable to Panchayat employees,

and not by the rules or circulars applicable to State

Government employees.

15

23. Therefore, since the petitioners were

admittedly the employees of the Panchayat

Department before the absorption policy came into

force, they cannot claim the status of a

Government Servant for the purpose of seeking

the benefit of time-bound pay scale or Kramonnati

Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017.

Their service conditions were governed by the

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi

(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,

2007, the Rules of 2012, or any other rules framed

under Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat

Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which regulate the service

conditions of Panchayat employees.”

6 They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the

present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.191/2026, and Writ

Appeal No. 193/2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same

terms.

7 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for

the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is

evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to

Writ Appeal No.191/2026 and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026, this Court

deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken

in Writ Appeal No.191/2026 and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026 decided

on 13.03.2026.

8 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order

dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.191/2026

and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SSd

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Alok