TRILOCHAN PRASAD KSHATREE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
WPS/5847/2025 · 2025-08-17
Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22791 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22791 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:41366
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5847 of 2025 1 - Trilochan Prasad Kshatree S/o Daulat Ram Kshatree Aged About 50 Years Posted And Working As Teacher (Lb) At Govt. Middle School Jarahi, Block- Rajnandgaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Hirantak Kumar Dwivedi S/o Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 56 Years Posted And Working As Lecturer (Lb) At Pmshir Swami Atmanand Govt. English Medium Excellence School Chhuikhadan, Block- Chhuikhadan, Distt. - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Ekta Shrivastava W/o Digvijay Shrivastava Aged About 44 Years Posted And Working As Lecturer (Lb) At Govt. High School Khudmudi, Block- Chhuikhadan, Distt. - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Indira Uikey D/o Mahadev Aged About 41 Years Posted And Working Head Master At Govt. Primary School Markatola, Block - Gurur, Distt. - Balod (C.G.) 5 - Rupesh Kumar Sori S/o Santram Sori Aged About 46 Years Posted Ans Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Kinargondi, Block- Gurur, Distt. - Balod (C.G.). 6 - Vandana Sahu W/o Ramsawroop Sahu Aged About 44 Years Posted And Working As Teacher (Lb) At Govt. Middle School Chhediya, Block - Gurur, Distt. - Balod (C.G.) 7 - Ramsawroop Sahu S/o Nammu Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years Posted And Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Odenadih, Block- Gurur, Distt. - Balod (C.G.) 8 - Sunil Kumar Wasnik S/o Manrakhan Lal Wasnik Aged About 39 Years Posted Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN
2 And Working As Lecturer (Lb) At Govt. H.S. School Khairjhiti, Block- Rajnandgaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 9 - Smt. Rohini Patel W/o Lakhan Lal Patel Aged About 42 Years Posted And Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Salikjhitiya, Block- Dongargaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Balod, District Balod (C.G.). 6 - District Education Officer Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.).
7 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 8 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 9 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.). 10 - Block Education Officer Block Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 11 - Block Education Officer Block Gurur, District Balod (C.G.). 12 - Block Education Officer Block- Dongargaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 13 - Block Education Officer Block Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.)
3 14 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 15 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Gurur, District Balod (C.G.). 16 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.). 17 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board 18-08-2025
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking direction towards the respondent authorities for grant of Krmonnati Vetanman on completion of 10 years of service in view of the order dated 28-02-2024 passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in WA No. 261/2023 and also as per circular dated 10-03-2017 issued by the State Government of C.G.
2. The claim of the petitioners is with regard to grant of Kramonnati Vetanman.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to award of Kramonnati Vetanman, some circular has also been issued by the respondent-State. Apart from this, Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Sona Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in W.A. No.261 of 2023, has also considered the identical issue. The petitioners are also entitled for Kramonnati Vetanman. He further submits that at present, this petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make their representation to the competent authority in light of order dated 28/02/2024 passed by this Court in W.A. No.261 of 2023.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for
4 the petitioners.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents.
5. Against the order passed in WA No.261 of 2023, the State preferred a review petition bearing REVP No. 147 of 2024, which was considered and rejected by a detailed order. There against the State filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing SLP(C) No. 58525 of 2024, which was dismissed by
order dated 17-03-2025.
6. Be that as it may, looking to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make their representation raising all grounds as raised in this writ petition to competent authority annexing all relevant documents and
judgment of this Court passed in W.A. No. 261 of 2023. On such representation(s) being made, it is expected that the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law considering the circular(s) issued in this regard, in light of judgment of this Court in W.A. No.261 of 2023 within further period of 4 months from the date of receipt of such representation(s). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of this case, it is for the competent authority to consider the claim of petitioners on its own merits.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge Aadil