1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 01.12.2025 Order passed on : 11.12.2025 WPS No. 2824 of 2023 1 - Manesh Kumar Nayak S/o Mr. Shambhu Ram Nayak Aged About 37 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Daguntola Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. - Yashwant Lal Diwan S/o Mr. Samaru Ram Diwan Aged About 49 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P.V. 98, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chetan Lal Latiya S/o Mr. Dayal Singh Laitya Aged About 42 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P.V. 98 99, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pawan Kumar Darro S/o Mr. Brijlal Darro Aged About 33 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Salihapara Jhiramtarai, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sanjay Kumar Kodopi S/o Mr. Chamru Ram Aged About 44 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Aamatola, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 6 - Anil Kumar Usare S/o Mr. Aesu Ram Usare Aged About 37 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Rengawahi, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sanjay Kumar Uike S/o Mr. Parman Ram Uike Aged About 45 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Mokhandi Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ramesh Kumar Tandan S/o Mr. Bhukhan Lal Tandan Aged About 50 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Tadvayli, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 9 - Ram Kishan Netam S/o Mr. Bakhru Ram Netam Aged About 40 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Chhindpadar, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 10 - Kamal Singh Mandavi S/o Mr. Gangu Ram Mandavi Aged About 48 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Burgi, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 11 - Dharmendra Kumar Rana S/o Mr. Dayanand Rana Aged About 30 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Marbeda, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 12 - Ramji Ram Margiya S/o Mr. Mangiya Ram Margiya Aged About 45 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Marbeda, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 13 - Sukhesh Kumar Darendra S/o Mr. Jarhu Ram Darendra Aged About 37 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P.V. 96, Block Koylibeda, District - Uttar Baster 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. 4 - District Education Officer, District- Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs by way of this writ petition:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to pass an order to the effect that services the petitioners be absorb to Education Department, immediately on completion of 2 years of services, with all consequential benefit from initial date of appointment. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to grant the weightage of services 3 rendered by petitioners to the Panchayat Department on completion of 2 years from initial date of appointment. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The case, as presented, is that the petitioners were all appointed in the Panchayat Department well before the year 2016 and had each completed more than two years of service by the time the State Government introduced its policy for absorption of Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya Teacher Cadre employees into the School Education Department. Pursuant to this policy, and in terms of the appointment orders, the petitioners became eligible for absorption immediately upon completion of two years of service. Respondent No. 1 subsequently issued an order dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P/2) directing that all such employees who had completed two years of service would be absorbed into the Education Department with effect from 01.11.2020, and the petitioners’ services were accordingly absorbed. However, this absorption was effected without considering the pay-scale discrepancies and the differential treatment between the petitioners and similarly placed employees appointed in earlier years, such as those appointed in 1998. While Teacher Cadre employees of Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya receive the benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, upon absorption they become entitled to the 7th Pay Commission benefits, resulting in substantial monetary loss to the petitioners due to delayed and improperly reckoned absorption. Although respondent No. 1 had earlier issued orders dated 30.06.2018 4 and 13.07.2018 (Annexure P/3), supported by Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Shiksha (Panchayat) Cadre (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018, prescribing absorption of eligible employees with eight years of service and clarifying that service would be counted from the date of joining the lower post, the petitioners contend that despite their absorption, they have unjustly lost seniority and suffered financial detriment. The petitioners therefore assert that the respondents’ failure to grant them the same benefits as those extended to other employees with two years of service in Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the applicable policy framework. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action and order of the respondents, particularly the order dated 23.07.2020, are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as they result in serious prejudice to the petitioners by adversely affecting their seniority and causing substantial monetary loss. It is urged that while employees who have completed merely two years of service are being granted absorption benefits and are now placed at par with the petitioners in terms of salary and pay fixation, the petitioners, who were compelled to wait eight years for absorption, are denied corresponding benefits, thereby creating an unreasonable and unjustified classification. Counsel contends that the respondents have acted with discrimination by refusing to grant the petitioners the 7th Pay Commission pay-scale and increments from their initial date of appointment, despite the petitioners continuously serving the State Government since the beginning of their service. It is further submitted that the respondents’ action is illegal and contrary to the 5 2018 Rules framed by the State Government, which govern the service conditions of the Panchayat Cadre, and that no amendment has been made to these Rules prior to issuance of the impugned order; hence, the order dated 23.07.2020, passed without statutory backing, cannot override the petitioners’ accrued rights. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners were legitimately entitled to absorption in the Education Department immediately upon completion of two years of service with all consequential benefits, and the failure of the respondents to extend similar treatment, while granting monetary and service benefits to newly appointed Assistant Teachers, Teachers, and Lecturers of Local Bodies, renders the action arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is submitted that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation of fairness from the State, which has been defeated by the discriminatory manner in which the impugned order operates. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that all adverse allegations made in the writ petition are categorically denied, as the petitioners’ claims are devoid of substance and liable to be rejected. It is contended that the petitioners, who were initially appointed in the Panchayat Department prior to 2016, have already been absorbed into the School Education Department pursuant to the State Government’s policy decision dated 30.06.2018, which provided for absorption of Panchayat/Local Body teachers who had completed eight years of service as on 01.07.2018. Counsel emphasizes that Clause IV of the said order expressly stipulates that all service benefits shall be computed only from the date of absorption, and since the petitioners accepted absorption without any protest, they are bound by the terms and conditions of that policy. 6 It is further submitted that the petitioners have neither challenged Clause IV of the 30.06.2018 order nor the absorption order dated 29.09.2018, and in the absence of such challenge, their attempt to claim seniority or monetary benefits from an earlier date is legally unsustainable. The State Counsel argues that the relief sought amounts to modification of the gradation list, yet the petitioners have failed to implead any of the affected employees who, being junior according to the petitioners, would be adversely impacted; therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ past services in the Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya cannot be counted for salary fixation, arrears, or seniority once they have been absorbed as Lecturer (LB) ‘T’ Cadre in the School Education Department, as the policy and rules do not permit such retrospective benefits. In view of these submissions, learned State Counsel prays that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable, be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. The facts are largely undisputed. The petitioners were absorbed in the School Education Department under the policy decision dated 30.06.2018, which mandated completion of eight years of service as a condition for absorption. The petitioners accepted such absorption without raising any objection, and their absorption orders have long since attained finality. The present grievance arises only after issuance of the subsequent policy dated 23.07.2020, which introduced 7 absorption upon completion of two years of service for a fresh class of employees. 7. The issue raised herein is no longer res integra. An identical controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2021, decided on 28.11.2025, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the policy dated 23.07.2020 and rejected the claim of teachers absorbed under the 2018 policy seeking notional absorption, seniority, or monetary benefits from an earlier date. This Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that the 2020 policy is a prospective executive decision which neither divests nor curtails any rights of employees absorbed earlier under the 2018 policy. It was further held that once an employee voluntarily accepts absorption under a particular policy, he cannot thereafter approbate and reprobate by claiming more favourable treatment under a subsequent policy. The doctrine of estoppel squarely applies in such circumstances. 8. Applying the same principles to the present case, it is evident that the petitioners’ plea for absorption from the date they completed two years of service is wholly misconceived. The petitioners cannot seek reopening of settled service conditions or challenge the consequences of a policy under which they voluntarily accepted absorption. The prayer seeking notional absorption, re-fixation of seniority, and consequential arrears is contrary to the 2018 Rules as well as the explicit terms of the absorption order dated 30.06.2018, particularly Clause IV, which mandates that all service benefits shall be computed only from the date of absorption. It is also significant that the petitioners 8 have not challenged Clause IV of the 2018 order, nor the absorption order dated 29.09.2018. 9. The claim of alleged discrimination is also untenable. As held in the earlier judgment, the relaxation of qualifying service for a different group of employees under the 2020 policy does not confer any legal right upon the petitioners to claim parity or retrospective benefits. Additionally, the relief sought necessarily entails alteration of the gradation list, but the petitioners have failed to implead the employees who would be directly affected. Non-joinder of necessary parties, namely those whose seniority would be disturbed, is fatal to the petition. The petitioners’ past service in the Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya cannot be counted for seniority, pay fixation, or monetary arrears after absorption as Lecturer (LB) “T” Cadre in the School Education Department. The statutory scheme and policy framework do not permit such retrospective recognition. Granting such relief would not only violate the 2018 Rules but also create administrative and structural anomalies in the cadre. 10. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and applying the ratio of the earlier judgment dated 28.11.2025, I find no merit in the arguments advanced by the petitioners. The impugned policy dated 23.07.2020 is a valid exercise of executive power, free from arbitrariness, discrimination, or procedural infirmity. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate violation of any vested rights warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The reliefs sought, namely notional absorption from completion of two years of service, grant of seniority and monetary benefits from an antedated period, and parity with employees absorbed under the 2020 policy, stand rejected. No order as to costs Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE