1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 03.12.2025 Order passed on : 11.12.2025 WPS No. 3304 of 2023 1 - Dilip Kumar Shori S/o Mr. Parsadi Ram Shori, Aged About 36 Years Post Lecturer ( Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Sihari, Block Durgukondal, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Develal Sen, S/o Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Sen, Aged About 55 Years Post Lecturer (L.B.) Posted At Govt. High School Sihari, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gajendra Shandilya, S/o Salik Ram Shandilya, Aged About 42 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Hanpatri Block Durgukondal, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker 4 - Hem Lal Khare, S/o Mr. Jethu Ram Khare, Aged About 39 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Sihari, Block Durgukondal Distt. U B Kanker 5 - Mr. Rameshwari Shandilya, W/o Mr. Gajendra Shandilya, Aged About 38 Years Posted Techer Local Body Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Diyagaon, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chandrashekhar Jain, S/o Late Mr. Govardhan Lal Jain, Aged About 46 Years Post Lecturer (L.B.) Posted At Govt. High School Uraiya,, Block Narharpur, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 7 - Pawan Kumar Vaidya, S/o Mr. Ramsevak Vaidya, Aged About 33 Years Post Lecturer Local Body) Posted At Govt. High School Hanpatri, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 8 - Mrs.Simmi Verma, W/o Mr. Dinesh Verma, Aged About 33 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body). Posted At Govt. High School Hanpatri, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 9 - Mrs. Khemeshwari Verma, W//o Mr. Sanjay Verma, Aged About 42 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body). Posted At Govt. High School Dangra, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 10 - Mrs. Anju Dhruw, W/o Sandeep Kumar Dhruw, Aged About 34 Years Post Lecturer (L.B.) Posted At Govt. High School Dangra, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 11 - Mrs.Premi Naimi Kindo, Mr. Jayant Kindo, Aged About 50 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body.) Posted At Govt. High School Eragaon, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. 12 - Mrs. Sarawati Komra, W/o Mr. Satish Kumar Komra, Aged About 33 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body.) Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Medo, Block Durgukondal, Distt. U B Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgrh. 2 - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate 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. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners were appointed in the Panchayat Department well before 2016 and had each completed more than two years of service prior to the enforcement of 3 the State Government’s absorption policy. Pursuant to the State’s policy dated 23.07.2020, which mandated that all employees in the Teacher Cadre of Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya who had completed two years of service would be absorbed in the School Education Department from 01.11.2020, the petitioners’ services were also absorbed accordingly. However, the petitioners contend that they were entitled to absorption immediately upon completion of two years from their initial appointment, along with all consequential benefits, and that the respondents failed to consider the resulting discrepancies in their pay-scale vis-à-vis similarly situated teachers appointed in earlier years, including those appointed in 1998. They assert that while Panchayat/Nagriya Nikaya teachers received benefits of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions and thereafter the 7th Pay Commission upon absorption, the delayed and improperly reckoned absorption date has caused them substantial monetary loss and loss of seniority. The petitioners further refer to earlier absorption orders dated 30.06.2018 and related clarifications issued under the 2018 Rules, under which absorption was to be effected annually on 1st January and 1st July, and argue that the respondents’ failure to extend similar benefits to them is arbitrary and discriminatory. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action and order dated 23.07.2020 violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as they result in arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of the petitioners. It is argued that the impugned order causes grave prejudice to the petitioners by adversely affecting their seniority and inflicting severe monetary loss, since employees who were appointed 4 merely two years prior are now being granted the same pay and benefits as the petitioners, whereas the petitioners were compelled to wait for eight years for absorption into the Education Department. Learned counsel contends that the respondents’ approach is discriminatory, particularly in denying the petitioners the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission from the date of their initial appointment, despite their continuous service under the State. It is further urged that the State Government had already issued specific orders and clarifications in 2018, supported by the Chhattisgarh Shiksha (Panchayat) Cadre (General Condition of Service) Rules, 2018, under which absorption was to be granted upon completion of two years of service, and that without amending the statutory rules, the respondents could not have issued the subsequent order dated 23.07.2020 to the detriment of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they had a legitimate expectation of fair treatment and parity with other employees of the State Government, including newly appointed teachers who are now receiving the full benefits of the 7th Pay Commission upon completion of two years of service, whereas the petitioners have been denied both monetary benefits and seniority. It is therefore submitted that the impugned action is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel vehemently denies all adverse allegations made in the writ petition and submits that the petitioners’ claims are wholly devoid of substance. 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 5 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. Learned State counsel submits that Clause IV of the said order categorically stipulates that all service benefits are to be computed only from the date of absorption, i.e., 01.07.2018, and that the petitioners, having accepted absorption under the said terms without any demur, are now estopped from seeking retrospective seniority or monetary benefits by counting their earlier service. It is emphasized that neither the policy dated 30.06.2018 nor the absorption order dated 29.09.2018 has been challenged by the petitioners, rendering the present writ petition not maintainable. The State further argues that the petitioners are essentially seeking alteration in the gradation list to place themselves above other employees, yet none of the persons who would be adversely affected by such relief have been impleaded as parties, attracting dismissal of the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also submitted that once the petitioners were absorbed and placed in the Lecturer (LB) “T” cadre, their past Panchayat service cannot be counted for seniority, salary fixation, arrears, or other consequential benefits. Accordingly, the State contends that the petitioners’ demand for antedated absorption, retrospective seniority, and monetary benefits is legally untenable, contrary to the binding terms of the 2018 policy, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. 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 6 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 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, 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. 6. In the present case, the petitioners were admittedly absorbed in the School Education Department pursuant to the policy decision dated 30.06.2018, which required completion of eight years of service. Clause IV of the said order clearly stipulates that all service benefits are to be reckoned only from the date of absorption. The petitioners accepted the said absorption without any protest, and neither the 2018 policy nor the absorption order dated 29.09.2018 has been challenged. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot now seek retrospective absorption or an antedated grant of seniority and monetary benefits by counting their past Panchayat service. The settled legal position is that seniority cannot be antedated unless expressly provided by statutory rules, which is not the case here. The further contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to be absorbed immediately on 7 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, having been governed by the 2018 scheme, cannot claim parity with persons governed by a later and altogether different policy framework. Mere existence of a later beneficial policy does not create a constitutional right in favour of those absorbed earlier. The petition also suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, as the petitioners seek alteration of the gradation list without impleading those junior employees who would be adversely affected by granting the relief sought. Such a writ petition is not maintainable. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned action of the respondents. The claim for retrospective absorption, seniority, or financial benefits is wholly misconceived and contrary to the governing policy. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE