1 2025:CGHC:58461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2860 of 2023 1 - Tumeshwar Kumar S/o Mr. Shyam Sunder Aged About 35 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Chhindtola, Block Koylibeda, District U. B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 - Mrs. Shweta Bhonsle W/o Mr. Vidyarao Bhonsle Aged About 39 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P. V. 38, Block Koylibeda, District U. B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Atma Ram Yadav S/o Mr. Nakul Ram Yadav Aged About 45 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Nadgaon, Block Koylibeda, District U. B. Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 4 - District Education Officer District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharh Pandey, Government Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 30/03/2022 passed by Respondent No. 4, whereby their representations seeking absorption into the Education Department on completion of eight years of service have been arbitrarily rejected. The petitioners submit that in terms of the State Government Policy/Rules, 2018 dated 30.06.2018 and subsequent amendments, an employee who completes eight years of continuous service becomes entitled to absorption with effect from the immediate absorption date, i.e., either 1st January or 1st July of the concerned year, and in the petitioners’ case the effective date should have been 01.07.2018, on which date they had completed eight years of service. However, despite this clear policy mandate, the respondents failed to consider the petitioners’ legitimate claim, and rejected their representations without assigning any cogent reason and in complete disregard of the petitioners’ submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is thus illegal, non-speaking, contrary to the governing policy, and deserves to be set aside with a 3 direction to absorb the petitioners in the Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside the order dated 30.03.2022 and direct the respondents to absorb the service of the petitioner with effect from 1/7/2018, with all consequential benefit from the initial date of appointment. ii. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be pleased in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II by separate orders dated 21.06.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, South Bastar Dantewada, pursuant to which petitioner No.1 joined on 03.07.2010 and petitioner No.2 joined on 08.07.2010 and Petitioner No.3 has joined on 06.07.2010. That, vide order dated 30.06.2018, Respondent No.1 issued a policy providing for absorption of all Teacher Panchayat/Nagri Nikaya employees who had completed eight years of service, followed by a clarification dated 13.07.2018 that where an employee had joined a higher 4 post after obtaining NOC, his/her service shall be counted from the date of joining the lower post; further, by order dated 02.07.2018, it was directed that absorption orders would be issued every year on 1st January and 1st July. Subsequently, another order dated 23.07.2020 provided that teachers entitled for absorption on 1st July would instead be absorbed on 01.11.2020. Despite the petitioners having completed eight years of service on 01.07.2018 and thus being entitled to absorption from that date, their services were absorbed belatedly by order dated 30.07.2019 with effect from 01.07.2019, causing loss of seniority and financial detriment. Earlier, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 542/2022, wherein vide order dated 31.01.2022 the Court directed Respondents No.2 and 3 to consider their claim; however, Respondent No.4, by impugned order dated 30.03.2022, rejected their representation on the erroneous ground that they had not completed eight years of service on 01.07.2018, overlooking Rule 12(a)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which mandates that the seniority of a directly recruited employee appointed on probation shall count from the date of appointment, thereby entitling the petitioners to absorption in the Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 suffers from illegality, arbitrariness as the respondents have failed to appreciate that the petitioners had 5 completed eight years of continuous service on 01.07.2018 from the date of their initial appointments, and were thus entitled to absorption in the Education Department with effect from that date in terms of the State Government Policy dated 30.06.2018 as well as the subsequent clarification dated 13.07.2018. It is contended that the respondents have incorrectly computed the petitioners’ qualifying service and have overlooked the specific mandate of Rule 12(a)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which categorically provides that the seniority of a directly recruited employee shall be counted from the date of his initial appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the action of delaying absorption from the rightful date has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners, resulting in loss of seniority, monetary deprivation, and hostile discrimination, particularly when similarly situated teachers have been extended the benefit of absorption from their due dates. It is further submitted that the benefit in question is required to be extended to the petitioners from the date of appointment and not from the date of joining, as their services stood absorbed and they were already in continuous employment. Learned counsel submits that the difference involved is merely of about 8–10 days, and in view of the scheme of absorption, such a distinction is neither justified nor permissible. He further contends that Rule 12 of the Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 supports the proposition that seniority and consequential benefits should relate 6 back to the date of appointment, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners’ claim is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, as the computation of eight years of qualifying service has been rightly undertaken in accordance with the petitioners’ actual dates of joining their respective posts. It is contended that although the appointment orders were issued on 21.06.2010, the petitioners joined their duties only on 03.07.2010 and 08.07.2010 & 06.07.2010 respectively, and therefore, for the purposes of the policy dated 30.06.2018, their service length is required to be counted from the dates of their actual joining and not from the date of issuance of the appointment order. Learned State Counsel further submits that upon correct calculation, the petitioners completed eight years of service only in July 2019, and accordingly, they were absorbed with effect from 01.07.2019. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.03.2023 is based on correct appreciation of facts and applicable policy provisions, and suffers from no illegality or infirmity. It is urged that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any statutory provision or legal entitlement establishing that the service length for absorption ought to be counted from the date of appointment rather than the date of joining. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not similarly situated to any employee absorbed earlier with effect from 7 01.07.2018 and therefore the writ petition is baseless and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. On consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the core issue for determination is whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide orders dated 21.06.2010 and who joined their respective posts in July 2010, were entitled to absorption in the School Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018, upon completion of eight years of continuous service, in terms of the State Government Policy dated 30.06.2018 and subsequent policy clarifications. 8. It is not in dispute that the State Government, by its policy dated 30.06.2018, mandated that all Teacher Panchayat/Nagri Nikaya employees who had completed eight years of service as on the cut-off date were to be absorbed into the School Education Department, and the absorption orders were required to be issued on 1st January or 1st July of each year. The clarification dated 13.07.2018 further clarified that in cases where an employee had been appointed to a higher post after obtaining NOC, the service for the purpose of counting the eight-year period would relate back to the date of joining on the lower post. The subsequent order dated 02.07.2018 reiterated that absorption was to be 8 granted strictly with reference to the two fixed absorption dates. In the present case, both petitioners had been in uninterrupted service since July 2010 and had indisputably completed eight years of continuous service by 01.07.2018. The respondents, however, have rejected the petitioners’ claim only on the ground that the petitioners “had not completed eight years of service” as on 01.07.2018, on the premise that their service period should be counted from the date of “actual joining” rather than from the date of their “appointment order”. Such a reasoning is patently erroneous for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioners joined within a few days from the issuance of their appointment orders, and the difference of approximately 8–10 days is entirely administrative in nature and incapable of altering substantive rights, particularly when the absorption policy is beneficial in character and intended to grant parity across the teaching cadre. Secondly, the respondents’ interpretation is contrary to Rule 12(a) (i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which specifically mandates that seniority of a directly recruited employee shall be counted from the date of appointment, unless otherwise provided. The petitioners were directly appointed pursuant to duly issued orders dated 21.06.2010, and in the absence of any statutory rule providing to the contrary, their service length is necessarily relatable to the date of appointment. The respondents have not pointed to a 9 single rule or notification displacing the statutory mandate of Rule 12. 9. Further, a conjoint reading of the 2018 Policy, the clarification dated 13.07.2018, and Rule 12 of the Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 makes it evident that the phrase “completion of eight years of service” must be construed in a manner that ensures continuity and fairness, not in a manner that denies legitimate benefits on the basis of a few days’ difference, which is not attributable to the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that beneficial service policies must be interpreted to advance the purpose of the scheme and not frustrate it by hyper-technical interpretations. The respondents’ insistence on counting service only from the date of actual joining, despite the appointment orders having been issued earlier, is not supported by any statutory rule, and is contrary to administrative fairness, uniformity, and the principle of legitimate expectation. 10. In addition, the respondents have not disputed that several similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of absorption with effect from their due dates upon completion of eight years of service under identical circumstances. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be treated differently without reasonable justification. The impugned order dated 30.03.2023, rejecting the petitioners’ representation, is a mere mechanical 10 reproduction of dates without any discussion of the relevant policy provisions, the clarification orders, Rule 12 of the 1961 Rules, or the petitioners’ specific submissions. It is thus a non-speaking order, bereft of reasoning, and violates the principles of natural justice. This Court also notes that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in WPS No. 542/2022, wherein this Court directed the respondents to reconsider their claim. Despite such clear direction, Respondent No. 4 has failed to undertake a reasoned consideration and has instead rejected the petitioners’ claim on an incorrect and legally unsustainable premise. 11. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners had completed eight years of continuous service as on 01.07.2018, and were, therefore, entitled to absorption in the School Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018. The denial of such benefit has resulted in loss of seniority and consequential financial detriment, which cannot be permitted to stand. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, contrary to the governing policy, violative of Rule 12 of the 1961 Rules, and unsustainable in law. 12. In view of the detailed findings recorded hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2022 passed by Respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners in the School Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018, 11 treating them as having completed eight years of continuous service on that date, and to extend all consequential benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena