1 2025:CGHC:45610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10335 of 2019 Raviprabha Sahu S/o Ram Singh Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Primary School Junvani, Block Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Secretary, Department Of Pachayat, State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Block Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Sahu, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 & 5/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : None present, though represented (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner's case, in the interest of justice. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.12 10:12:49 +0530 2 (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash letter dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure P-1) and circular dated 28.04.2015 may be modified, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant benefit of the kramonnati pay scale to the petitioner as per circular dated 02.11.2011 issued by the State Govt. and circular dated 07.03.2019 & circular dated 06.04.2019, in the interest of justice (iv) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell is that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide Order dated 20.6.2005 (Annexure-P/2) by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur and he joined to the same post on 23.6.2005. He had completed probation period of two years on 20.6.2007 and was regularized vide Order dated 16.01.2008. Subsequently, nomenclature of post of Shiksha Karmi was changed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat/Nagar Nigam). Services of the Assistant Teacher (Panchayat/Nagar Nigam) was absorbed in School Education Department to the post of Assistant Teacher (Local Body) vide Order dated 18.8.2018. Thus, the petitioner had worked as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and Assistant Teacher for more than 10 years, despite that he was not granted Kramonnati as per Circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3) issued by General Administration Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the petitioner filed petition bearing WPS No.8401/2018, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench vide Order dated 02.01.2019 granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation. Thereafter the petitioner filed representation, but the same has been rejected by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh/ respondent No.4 vide Annexure-P/1. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III as per the 3 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2007 and first Order/Circular dated 02.11.2011 issued by the Department of Panchayat and Rural Department, Raipur for grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to the Teachers (Panchayat) and Shiksha Karmi, had been withdrawn vide subsequent Circular issued by the Panchayat Department on 14.11.2014 with retrospective effect from 01.5.2013, but vide Circular/Order dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure P/3) issued by General Administration Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Assistant Teachers have been directed to be granted first Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 10 years of service and second Kramonnati vetanman after completion of 20 years of service. Learned counsel referring to the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in WA No.261/2023 dated 28.02.2023 (Smt. Sona Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) would submit that the petitioner of that case was also appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat, Sonahat Distt. Koriya on 29.7.2005, but she was not granted Kramonnati Vetanman (upgraded pay scale), therefore, she filed writ petition (S). No.3006/2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide Order dated 04.5.2023, but in Writ appeal, the learned Division Bench has set aside the aforesaid order of the Single Bench and allowed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner Smt. Sona Sahu on 28.02.2024. Review petition filed by the respondents/State bearing Rev. P No.147/2024 was also dismissed by the learned Division Bench and SLP (Civil) Diary No(S). 58525/2024 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that case of the present petitioner is similar to the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra), who has been directed to be granted Kramonnati Vetanman vide Order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Division Bench. Hence, he prayed that instant petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be directed to be granted Kramonnati Vetanman as per Circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3). 4. The State has filed reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that, claim for grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to the petitioner after 4 completion of 10 years service, cannot be granted him as the State Government, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralay, Raipur (CG) vide Order/circular dated 14.11.2014 cancelled the earlier departmental circular dated 02.11.2011, which was issued by the Department of Panchayat sanctioning Kramonnati Vetanman to the Teacher (Panchayat) cadre w.e.f. 01.11.2011, therefore, representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.4. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner claimed aforesaid benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman in view of Circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3) issued by General Administration Department of Govt. of Chhattisgarh, which applies only to those Assistant Teachers, who have been appointed initially by the School Education Department. But when the aforesaid circular was issued, the petitioner was working as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department and his service was absorbed in the ‘School Education Department’ in the year 2018 only. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be benefited on the basis of that circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3), as only after absorption in the year 2018, he became employee of the ‘School Education Department’ of Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief sought for by him, hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Respondent No.4 has filed its reply in which it has also been raised similar contention as of respondents No.1 to 3 & 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III (Panchayat) vide Order dated 20.6.2005 (Annexure-P/2) issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh and he joined to the said post on 23.6.2005. Subsequently, vide Order dated 18.8.2018 passed by District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (CG), service of the petitioner was absorbed with ‘School Education Department’ to the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) in compliance of Order dated 30.6.2018 passed by School Education 5 Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Thus, prior to 18.8.2018, the petitioner was posted as Shiksha Karmi/Assistant Teacher (Panchayat/Nagar Nigam). 8. After completion of 10 years, the petitioner filed representation dated 24.9.2018 (Annexure-P/4) for grant of Kramonnati Vetanman, which was not decided by the competent authority. Thereafter, in compliance of common order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench in bunch of writ petitions along with WPS No.8401/2018 filed by the petitioner, representation of the petitioner was decided by respondent No.4 and the same was dismissed on 30.8.2019 (Annexure- P/1) on the ground that since earlier Circular issued by Depart of Panchayat on 02.11.2011 for grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to the teachers/Shiksha Karmi (Panchayat) has been cancelled vide Order/Circular dated 14.11.2014 with retrospective effect from 01.5.2013, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get Kramonnati Vetanman. 9. In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought Kramonnati Vetanman on the basis of Order/Circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3) issued by General Administration Department (GAD), Govt. of Chhattisgarh, which is reproduced as under:- NRrhlx<+ 'kklu lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ea=ky; egkunh Hkou] u;k jk;iqj Øekad ,Q 10&1@2006@1&3 u;k jk;iqj] fnukad 10@03@2017 izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] NRrhlx<+ jktLo e.My] fcykliqj leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr laHkkxk;qDr] leLr dysDVlZ] NRrhlx<+- fo"k;%& lgk;d f’k{kdksa dks ØeksUufr osrueku iznk; fd;s tkus ckcr~A lanHkZ%& bl foHkkx dh lela[;d ifji= fnukad 24-04-2006- bl foHkkx ds lanfHkZr ifji= }kjk f’k{kd laoxZ esa lgk;d 6 f’k{kd] f’k{kd rFkk O;k[;krk dks lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad ,Q 1&1@1@osvkiz@99] fnukad 17-03-1999@19-04-1999 esa fufgr 'krksZa ds v/;/khu izFke ØeksUufr 12 o"kZ ckn rFkk f}rh; ØeksUufr 24 o"kZ ckn iznku fd;k x;k gSA foRr foHkkx ds Kkiu Øekad 216@lh&2802@10@foRr@fu;e@pkj] fnuakd 04-08-2010 ¼foRr funsZ’k 32@2010½ }kjk ØeksUufr ;kstuk dks la’kksf/kr dj f’k{kd rFkk O;k[;krk laoxZ dks izFke mPprj le;eku osrueku 10 o"kZ ckn ,oa f}rh; mPprj le;eku osrueku 20 o"kZ ckn nsus dks fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA 2@ vr,o mijksDr fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; esa jkT; 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd bl foHkkx ds lanfHkZr ifji= fnukad 24-04-2006 dh dafMdk&2 esa Þlgk;d f’k{kdÞ dks izFke ØeksUufr 10 o"kZ ckn ,oa f}rh; ØeksUufr 20 o"kZ ckn iznku dh tk,A 3@ mijksDr fu.kZ; ds laca/k esa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ØeksUufr dh ns;rk frfFk ds vuqlkj dsoy dkYifud osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk,xk ,oa fdlh izdkj ds ,fj;lZ ns; ugha gksaxsA 4@ ;g vkns’k foRr foHkkx ds dEI;wVj Øekad ,Q&2017&01&01093 fnukad 09-02-2017 }kjk nh xbZ lgefr ds vk/kkj ij tkjh fd;k x;k gSA NRrhlx<+ ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns’kkuqlkj] lgh@& ¼,e-vkj- Bkdqj½ voj lfpo NRrhlx<+ 'kklu lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx 10. Bare perusal of aforesaid circular shows that it has been issued by the GAD, Govt. of Chhattisgarh and not by the School Education Department. Further, it has been sent for compliance to all the departments including all Head of the departments, all the Commissioners and the Collectors for grant of first Kramonnati Vetanman to the Assistant Teachers, Teachers and Lecturers after completion of 10 years and second Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 20 years. It has not been mentioned in the aforesaid Order/Circular that it will applicable to only those Assistant Teachers, Teachers or Lecturers, who have initially been appointed in School Education Department or it will not applicable to those Assistant Teachers, Teachers or Lecturers, who have initially appointed by Panchayat/Local Body and 7 subsequently absorbed in School Education Department. Therefore, contention raised by learned State counsel that since the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III/Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and he was absorbed in the School Education Department in the year 2018, therefore, he is not entitled to get benefit of Order/Circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3), is not sustainable. 11. Perusal of Order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra) shows that case of the present petitioner is similar to the case of petitioner Sona Sahu, who was also initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III in the year 2005 in Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat, Distt. Koriya and she also filed WPS No.3006/2020 for grant of Kramonnati Vetanman, but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide Oder dated 04.5.2023. But in appeal, preferred by petitioner Smt. Sona Sahu bearing WA No.261/2023, vide Order dated 28.02.2024, the learned Division Bench set aside the Order dated 04.5.2023 passed by learned Single Bench and by allowing writ appeal, it has been held that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits. The observations made by learned Division Bench in para 8 to 12 is reproduced as under:- “8. In the present case the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.02.2020 whereby the order dated 15.01.2020 by which the Kramonnati Vetanman was granted to the petitioner/appellant was cancelled on the ground that the circular/order dated 02.11.2011 was cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013 by the order dated 14.11.2014 and since the petitioner who has not completed 10 years of her service in the cadre was not entitled for Kramonnati Vetanman and she has been sanctioned revised pay scale equal to the Govt. teachers after completion of 8 years of her service. 9. From perusal of the order dated 15.01.2020 annexed with the writ petition (Annexure-P/13) it appears that while passing the order dated 15.01.2020 the respondent No.6 has considered various circulars/orders 8 issued by the department from time to time, i.e., circulars/orders dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure-P/8), 06.04.2019 (Annexure-P/9), 10.03.2017 (Annexure-P/7), 02.11.2011 (Annexure-P/4) and sanctioned revised pay scale by granting her first Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 10 years of her service, i.e., with effect from 01.08.2015. The respondent No.6 suo moto reconsidered the order dated 15.01.2020 and while passing the order dated 29.02.2020 cancelled the order dated 15.01.2020 on the ground that the earlier circular/order dated 02.11.2011 has already been cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.05.2013 and thus, considering that after 30.04.2013 those teachers who have completed 10 years of service and have not promoted are not entitled for Kromonnati Vetanman. While reconsidering the matter, the respondent No.6 has not considered the circular/order dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure-P/7) and 07.03.2019 (Annexure-P/8). From bare perusal of the circular/order dated 10.03.2017 it appears that the State Government has taken a decision to give benefit of first Kramonnati after 10 years and second Kramonnati after 20 years to the Assistant Teachers in view of the earlier circular/order dated 24.04.2006. However, it has been clarified that only the notional pay fixation are to be done and the employees are not entitled for any arrears. 10. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 29.07.2005 and admittedly on 10.03.2017 when the circular/order was issued by the State Government, she has completed her 10 years of service and therefore, she claimed for first Kramonnati Vetanman. It appears from the order dated 29.02.2020 that the respondent No.6 has not considered the circular/order dated 10.03.2017 which is the base of the petitioner’s claim that she has completed her 10 years of service and therefore, she is entitled for Kramonnati Vetanman. 11. While considering the pleadings and documents the learned Single Judge has also not considered the circular/order dated 10.03.2017 and the ground was 9 raised by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. It is not a case of the respondents that the circular/order dated 10.03.2017 is not effective as on date or the order has been withdrawn by the State Government. If the circular/order dated 10.03.2017 is in existence, the petitioner is certainly be entitled for benefit of the same. True it is that on 14.11.2014 when the circular/order was issued withdrawing the earlier circular/order dated 02.11.2011 with effect from 01.05.2013, the petitioner was not completed 10 years of her service, but on the date of circular/order dated 10.03.2017 she has completed her 10 years of service and is entitled for Kramonnati after completion of 10 years of service. 12. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and WPS No.3006 of 2020 is allowed. The order dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.6 is hereby quashed. The appellant is entitled for all consequential benefits. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.” 12. Review petition bearing No.147/2024 preferred by the Respondent/State against order dated 28.02.2024 has been dismissed by the learned Division Bench vide Order dated 23.7.2024 and SLP (Civil) Diary No(S). 58525/2024 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against aforesaid orders. 13. Though Smt. Sona Sahu (petitioner in WPS No.3006/2020) was granted first Kramonnati Vetanman, which was subsequently recalled, but the petitioner of the instant case has not been granted first Kramonnati Vetanman, despite that basic ground and circumstances of the claim of the petitioners of both the petitions are similar, as despite completion of 10 years in service, they have not been granted Kramonnati Vetanman. and both of them have sought aforesaid relief on the strength of Order/Circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annedure-P/3). Therefore, aforesaid difference did not differ the fact-situation of the instant case from the case of Sona Sahu. 10 14. As has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, case of the present petitioner is similar to the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra), as the petitioner of the instant case was also appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (Panchayat) vide Order dated 20.6.2005 (Annexure-P/2) issued by Chief Executing Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh. Subsequently, his service was absorbed in the School Education Department in the year 2018. Though Order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure-P/8) has been cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.5.2013 vide Order/Circular date 14.11.2014, but having considered Annexure-P/3 dated 10.3.2017 issued by GAD, Govt. of Chhattisgarh for granting first Kramonnati Vetanman to the Assistant Teachers after completion of 10 years service and second Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 20 years of service and the relief granted by learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.261/2013, which has been upheld by the Apex Court also, therefore, on the strength of aforesaid judgments rendered by the learned Division Bench, the petitioner is also entitled to get Kramonnati Vetanman as per Circular/order dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3). 15. In view of the above, I feel inclined to allow this petition. Consequently, impugned Order (शुद्धि पत्र) dated 30.8.2019 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh/respondent No.4 is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant Kramonnati Vetanman to the petitioner, as per Circular dated 10.3.2017 (Annexure-P/3), issued by General Administration Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini