1 / 6 2026:CGHC:19775-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 345 of 2026 1 - Kumesh Kumar Dhruw S/o Ram Ratan Dhruw Aged About 41 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Government Primary School Karkara, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 2 - Jitendra Kumar Diwan S/o Purushottam Singh Diwan Aged About 43 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Government Primary School Gyan Jyoti Sargi Para, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Poonam Nishad W/o Tuman Lal Nishad Aged About 41 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Government Primary School Jamli, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Taohid Aalam S/o Abdul Rahman Aged About 41 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Government Primary School Mudagaon, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Commissioner Cum Director Directorate of Panchayat, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.05.01 11:26:24 +0530 2 / 6 5 - District Education Officer District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 7- Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Chhura District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Prasoon Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 29/04/2026 1. Heard Ms. Apoorva Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Prasoon Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.9417 of 2025 (Kumesh Kumar Dhruw & Ors. Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.) & other connected matters, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No.193 of 2026 (Pushpalata Manikpuri & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh& Others) vide order dated 13.03.2026 observing as follows : “29. The present writ appeal has been filed by the 3 / 6 appellants/petitioners seeking the benefit of Kramonnati under the Circular dated 10.03.2017, claiming parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023). The petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department between 1998 and 2008, and their services were regularized by the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respective Janpad and Zila Panchayats. They continued to serve under the Panchayat department till 2018, when they were absorbed into the School Education Department pursuant to the State Government policy dated 30.06.2018. Their service prior to absorption was governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules, 2007, and subsequent rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 30. The Circular dated 10.03.2017, on which the petitioners rely, specifically applies to Assistant Teachers under the School Education Department who have completed 10 years of service. In contrast, the petitioners’ service as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat department cannot be treated as equivalent to service under the School Education Department. The factual distinction is material, and the principles of parity require that employees claiming 4 / 6 equal treatment must be similarly situated in all material aspects, which is not the case here. 31. This has consistently held in WP(S) No. 208/2012, WP(S) No. 2530/2017, WP(S) No. 10335/2019, WP(S) No. 1021/2021, and WP(S) No. 3369/2021 that the services of the Shiksha Karmi governed by Panchayat rules are not entitled to pay scales or other benefits applicable to teachers of the School Education Department. The learned Single Judge rightly distinguished the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023), after independently examining the entitlement of the petitioners, concluded that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 does not apply to their service. 32. The learned Single Judge after adverting and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, elaborately considered various judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohan Vijay Nahar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others 2025 INSC 1296, State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, 2017 (1) SCC 148, Khoday Distiliaries Limited (Now known as Khoday India Limited) and Others vs. Shree Mahadeshwara Shahkara Sakkare Karkhane Limited 5 / 6 Kollegal 2019 (4) SCC 376 and Ravi Prakash Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh order dated 08-09-2025 passed learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 10335/2019, decided the writ petition filed by the writ appellants/petitioners in which, we do not find perversity or infirmity. The consideration of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is well merited based on a proper appreciation of the facts and law applicable to the case. 33. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra- court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 34. In view of the above, the writ appellants/petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023 (Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). Their claim under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 is, therefore, misconceived, and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 6 / 6 Accordingly, the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed” 4. They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No.193 of 2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No.193 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No.193 of 2026. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed in WA No.193 of 2026 (Pushpalata Manikpuri & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh& Others). SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu