1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 03.12.2025 Order passed on : 11.12.2025 WPS No. 4027 of 2023 1 - Mrs. Lata Dadsena W/o Mr. Kishor Kumar Dadsena Aged About 39 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Tarhul, Block Durgukondal, District Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Ratna Sahu W/o Mr. Prakash Kumar Sahu Aged About 57 Years Post Teacher Local Body, Posted As Govt. Upper Primary School Murdongri, Block Kanker, District Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... 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 C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 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 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 facts of the case, as gathered from the pleadings, are that all the petitioners were appointed in the Panchayat Department well before the year 2016 and had each completed more than two years of continuous service by the time the State Government introduced the policy for absorption of Panchayat teachers into the School Education Department. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 issued an order dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P/2), providing that all employees of the Teacher Cadre of Panchayat and Nagriya Nikaya who had completed two years of service would be absorbed into the Education Department with effect from 01.11.2020. In accordance with this policy, the services of the petitioners were also absorbed in the Education Department; however, such absorption was effected without extending to them the benefit of 3 being absorbed immediately upon completion of two years of service from their initial appointment, which would have entitled them to all consequential benefits, including pay fixation and seniority. The petitioners contend that the respondents passed the absorption orders mechanically, without taking into account the pay-scale discrepancies that adversely affect them, particularly in comparison to similarly situated candidates appointed in or after 1998. It is submitted that Teacher Cadre employees under the Panchayat and Nagriya Nikaya system were already receiving pay and increments under the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, and upon immediate absorption they would have become entitled to the 7th Pay Commission benefits; the delay in their absorption has therefore resulted in significant financial loss to them without any fault of their own. Reference is also made to the earlier order dated 30.06.2018, issued by respondent No. 1 (Annexure P/3), providing for the absorption of all Teacher Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya employees who had completed eight years of service, and its clarification dated 13.07.2018 stating that, where an employee joined a higher post after obtaining NOC, the period of service would be counted from the date of joining the lower post. Another order dated 02.07.2018 was also issued under the name of the Hon’ble Governor directing that absorption orders would be issued every year on 1st January and 1st July in accordance with Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Shiksha (Panchayat) Cadre (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018. The petitioners assert that although their services have been absorbed, they have unjustifiably lost seniority and suffered monetary loss, and the failure of the respondents to grant them the same 4 benefits extended to other employees absorbed upon completion of two years of service amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action and orders of the respondents are unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the order dated 23.07.2020 causes serious prejudice to the petitioners, as it adversely affects both their seniority and monetary entitlements. Counsel argues that employees appointed merely two years prior to absorption are now being granted the same salary and benefits as the petitioners, whereas the petitioners were compelled to wait for eight long years for absorption into the Education Department, thereby placing them at a clear disadvantage without any justification. This, according to the petitioners, is a classic case of hostile discrimination and arbitrary classification. It is further submitted that the respondents’ action has resulted in denial of the 7th Pay Commission benefits from the date of initial appointment, despite the petitioners continuously serving the State Government since their inception in service. The respondents, it is urged, have ignored the statutory framework, particularly the 2018 Rules, which govern absorption and seniority, and without amending these Rules, have issued the impugned order, thereby infringing vested rights of the petitioners. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the State would act fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the statutory rules and earlier government orders, but this expectation has been defeated by arbitrary administrative action. The petitioners, therefore, submit that they were entitled to be absorbed immediately upon completion of two 5 years of service with all consequential benefits, and the failure of the respondents to extend such benefit renders the impugned order illegal 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that all adverse allegations made by the petitioners are categorically and vehemently denied. It is contended that the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I on 26.07.2010 and their services were subsequently absorbed into the School Education Department strictly in accordance with the State Government’s policy decision dated 30.06.2018. Under this policy, only those teachers who had completed eight years of service as on 01.07.2018 were eligible for absorption, and Clause IV of the said order clearly stipulates that all service benefits, including seniority, shall be computed only from the date of absorption. The petitioners, having voluntarily accepted absorption w.e.f. 01.07.2018 without any objection and without challenging either the policy dated 30.06.2018 or the absorption order dated 29.09.2018, are now estopped from seeking antedating of seniority or benefits retrospectively. It is further submitted that the relief sought by the petitioners, which essentially seeks alteration of the gradation list, is not maintainable as the petitioners have failed to implead necessary parties, namely, those employees who would be adversely affected if the petitioners’ seniority is revised. Their absence renders the petition liable to dismissal for non-joinder of necessary parties. The State counsel argues that once the petitioners were absorbed and placed in the Lecturer (LB) ‘T’ cadre, their prior service under the Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya cannot be counted for salary, seniority, arrears or any consequential benefits, as the scheme of absorption 6 does not contemplate such continuity. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with due care. 6. The foundational facts are undisputed, the petitioners were absorbed into the School Education Department pursuant to the policy decision dated 30.06.2018, which explicitly provided that all service benefits, including seniority, would accrue only from the date of absorption, namely 01.07.2018. The petitioners accepted such absorption without protest, without challenging either the 2018 policy or the consequent absorption order dated 29.09.2018. Their present claim, seeking absorption from an anterior date, grant of consequential monetary benefits, and antedating of seniority, is, therefore, contrary to the terms of the very policy under which they were absorbed. 7. At the outset, it must be noted that 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. In the said decision, this Court has categorically held that the 2020 policy is a prospective executive policy which neither divests nor curtails any rights of employees absorbed earlier under the 2018 scheme. It was further held that once an employee voluntarily accepts absorption under a particular policy, 7 he cannot thereafter approbate and reprobate by claiming more favourable treatment under a subsequent policy. The doctrine of estoppel squarely applies in such circumstances. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment applies on all fours to the present case, and no distinguishing feature has been demonstrated by learned counsel for the petitioners. The further contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to be absorbed immediately on completion of two years of service with all consequential benefits, and that denial thereof constitutes hostile discrimination under Article 14, is equally untenable. The 2020 policy operates prospectively and confers benefits upon a fresh category of teachers meeting the eligibility criteria on or after 01.11.2020. It does not retrospectively modify or nullify the absorption already completed under the 2018 policy. The petitioners cannot claim parity with persons governed by a subsequent scheme. Mere existence of a later beneficial policy does not create a constitutional right in favour of those absorbed earlier under a different framework. 8. Furthermore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the petitioners seek alteration of their seniority without impleading the teachers who would be affected if the relief is granted. The law is well settled that any claim seeking modification of the gradation list cannot be entertained in the absence of all affected persons. As regards the plea that the petitioners are entitled to pay fixation and monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment, the same also cannot be accepted. Once the petitioners were absorbed in the Lecturer (LB) ‘T’ cadre, their past Panchayat service cannot be counted for purposes of seniority, arrears or pay 8 fixation, unless specifically provided by the governing policy, which it is not. The petitioners cannot seek to rewrite the terms of absorption. 9. In view of the clear legal position, and particularly in view of the binding precedent of this Court in WPS No. 1389 of 2021, the claims raised in the present petition are wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE