1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5530 of 2018 1 - Tilak Ram Mandavi S/o Sadhuram Mandavi, Aged About 29 Years Working As Lecturer (Panchayat) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Gatapar, Post Korra, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nutan Kumar Deewan, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Deewan, Aged About 29 Years Working As Lecturer (Panchayat) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhendra, Block Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) and WPS No. 4358 of 2018 1 - Smt. Tukeshwari KanwarW/o Shri Bhaypal Singh Kanwar, Aged About 32 Years Working As Lecturer Panchayat And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Kochway, Block And District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- For Petitioners : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G. For respective Respondents : Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Neetesh Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. In these petitions, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) under the respondents vide orders dated 20.10.2014, 01.03.2013 and 19.02.2013, respectively. The petitioners made representations before the respondent authorities for the grant of annual increments from the date of their initial appointment. The claims of the petitioners were rejected by the Commissioner-Cum-Directorate of Panchayat Chhattisgarh, Raipur, vide order dated 08.03.2017 on the ground that the petitioners had not completed 8 years of service when representations were made. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that in WPS No.4358 of 2018, the petitioner, namely, Smt. Tukeshwari Kanwar was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 2007, and her past services were not taken into consideration while passing the order impugned. He would further submit that the provision to provide an annual increment after 3 completion of 8 years of service is bad in law; therefore, the order Annexure P/1 dated 08.03.2017 is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. Mr. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, would submit that the petitioners have not challenged the relevant rule, which provides for experience of 8 years for promotion, and they had not completed required 8 years of services to get the benefit of annual advance increments nor they had obtained the essential qualification of B.Ed./D.Ed. certificate at that time. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. At the relevant time, the petitioners had not acquired B.Ed/D. Ed certificates and they had also not completed 8 years of service, which was the requisite criterion to extend the benefit of one advance increment; therefore, their representations were rejected. 6. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, both petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha