1 2026:CGHC:20329-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 378 of 2026 1 - Doman Singh Netam S/o Nand Lal Netam Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Jamgaon, Block Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Tamin Netam W/o Doman Netam Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Boanpal-2, Block Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Santosh Kumar Nag S/o Mata Ram Nag Aged About 41 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Jamgaon, Block Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Cum Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) 7 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 10:45:33 +0530 2 8 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 9 - Block Education Officer Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) 10 - Block Education Officer Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 11 - Pila Ram Dhruw S/o Late Man Singh Dhruw Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Maretha, Block - Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 12 - Smt. Kanta Lakra W/o Subodh Lakra Aged About 51 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Bade Jirakhal, Block - Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 13 - Sukdeo Sahu S/o Surajpal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Maretha, Block - Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 14 - Rupendra Kumar Taram S/o Late Mayaram Taram Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Chargaon, Block - Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 15 - Rakesh Kumar Pausarya S/o Manthir Ram Pausarya Aged About 50 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Dhanpur, Block - Bakawand, District - Bastar (C.G.) 16 - Jaysingh Baghel S/o Faulad Baghel Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Dhanpur, Block - Bakawand, District - Bastar (C.G.) 17 - Puna Ram Thakur S/o Bhuneshwar Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Mohlai - 1, Block - Bakawand, District - Bastar (C.G.) 18 - Brijlal Netam S/o Late Ramdhar Netam Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Chargaon, Block - Bakawand, District - Bastar (C.G.) 19 - Ghanshyam Singh Dewhari S/o Ishar Ram Dewhari Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Pakhnaguda, Block - Bakawand, District - Bastar (C.G.) 20 - Mansingh Pulest S/o Lakhan Singh Pulest Aged About 50 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Gondiyapal, Block - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 21 - Khuresh Kumar Mandavi S/o Late Manglu Ram Mandavi Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Dengguda Ratenga, Block - Bastar, District - Bastar 3 (C.G.) 22 - Vikrant Dubey S/o Puran Prasad Dubey Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Vishrampuri, Block - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 23 - Chudamani Kunwar S/o Bhakar Kunwar Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Bhirendra, Block - Bakawand, District - Bastar (C.G.) 24 - Smt. Lakhamani Baghel W/o Ramesh Kumar Baghel Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Kesharpal, Block - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01/05 /2026 1 Heard Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 79 days in preferring the present appeal. 2 On due consideration the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 79 days in preferring the present writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3 The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS 4 No.10164/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by petitioners was dismissed. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2026 in Writ Appeal No.191/2026, whereby this Court has held as under:- “16. The entire controversy revolved around the Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the State Government with respect to the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to the Assistant Teachers. It is necessary to notice here the circular dated 10.03.2017, which reads as under: छቈኍसगढ़ शासन समान्य ्ቚशासन विभाग माቔኋलय माहानदी भान, नय राय्ቚ ्ቅमाक एफ 10-1/2008/1-3 नय रायपुरा दिदीनक 10/03/2017 ्ቚवि, शासन क समास् विभाग, अध्य्ቌ, छቈኍसगढ़ राजस् माण्डल, वि(लसपुरा समास् विभागध्य्ቌ, समास् सभागयक् समास् कल क्टस+, छቈኍसगढ़ विषय :- सहायक शिशा्ቌक. क/ कमा/्ቐवि  नमान ्ቚदीय विकए जन ((1। सदीभा+ :- इस विभाग क समासख्यक पुरिरापुቔኋ दिदीनक 24.04.2006. -00- इस विभाग क सदीቝኌभा7 पुरिरापुቔኋ ቛኋरा शिशा्ቌक सग+ मा9 सहायक शिशा्ቌक, शिशा्ቌक था ቤኋख्य क/ समान्य ्ቚशासन विभाग क पुरिरापुቔኋ कमाक एफ 1-1/1/ आ्ቚ/99, दिदीनक 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 मा9 विनविहा शा= क अध्यधीन ्ቚथान कमा/्ቐवि 12 ष+ (दी था विቛኋय ्ቅमा/्ቐवि 24 ष+ (दी ्ቚदीन विकय गय हा?। विቈኍ विभाग क ሺኋपुन कमाक 216/स-2802/10/विቈኍ/विनयमा/धीरा, दिदीनक 04.08.2010 ( विቈኍ विनदीAशा 32/2010) ቛኋरा ्ቅमा/्ቐवि य/जन क/ सशा/धिधी 5 करा शिशा्ቌक था ቤኋख्य सग+ क/ ्ቚथामा उ्ሴरा समायमान  नमान 10 ष+ (दी ए विቛኋय उ्ሴरा समायमान  नमान 20 ष+ (दी दी न क विन्ቓ+य शिलय गय हा?। 2/ अए उपुरा/क् विन्ቓ+य क पुरिरा्ቚ ቌኚय मा9 राज्य शासन ቛኋरा विन्ቓ+य शिलय गय हा? विक इस विभाग क सदीቝኌभा7 पुरिरापुቔኋ दिदीनक 24.04.2006 कH क विडक-2 मा9 " सहायक शिशा्ቌक" क/ ्ቚथामा कमा/्ቐवि 10 ष+ (दी ए विቛኋय ्ቅमा/्ቐवि 20 ष+ (दी ्ቚदीन कH जए। 3/ उपुरा/क् विन्ቓ+य क स(धी मा9 यहा ्ቢ्ቖ विकय ज हा? विक कमा/्ቐवि कH दी य विशिथा क अनसरा क ल कल्पुविनक  न विनधी+रा्ቓ विकय जएग ए विकस ्ቚकरा क एरिरायस+ दी य नहाL हा.ग । 4/ यहा आदी शा विቈኍ विभाग क कቘኚयNटरा कमाक एफ-2017- 01-01093 दिदीनक 09.02.2017 ቛኋरा दी गई सहामावि क आधीरा पुरा जरा विकय गय हा?। छቈኍसगढ़ क राज्यपुल क नमा स था आदी शानसरा, (एमा.आरा.ठो/कN रा) अरा सशिQ, छቈኍसगढ़ शासन समान्य ्ቚशासन विभाग 17. From perusal of the contents of the circular dated 10.03.2017, it is quite vivid that the Assistant Teachers, who were in Government service, are to be granted first Kramonnati Vetanman after 10 years of their service and second Kromonnati Vetanman after 20 years of their service, and the teachers and lecturers are to be granted first time-bound pay scale after 10 years of service and second time-bound pay scale after 20 years of service. 18. From Para-8.8 of the writ petition, undisputedly the petitioners have been appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- III/Grade-II between the period of 2008 and 2013. It is also relevant to notice here paragraph 8.8 of the writ petition, which reads as follows: “8.8 Between 2008-2013, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat appointed the Petitioners in the post of Assistant Teacher Shikshakarmi Grade- 6 3/Teacher- Shikshakarmi Grade 2. After completion of 2 years from the date of joining, the Petitionerswho were appointed as Assistant Teachers were Regularization by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and Teachers were Regularization by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat.” 19. When the petitioners in the present writ petition were appointed between 2008 and 2013, they had not completed 10 years of their service on the date when the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was issued. 20. From a bare perusal of the Circular dated 10.03.2017, it is abundantly clear that the said circular does not deal with or extend benefits to the Teachers belonging to the Panchayat Cadre, including Shiksha Karmi. The circular specifically provides for the grant of first-time- bound pay scale and second-time-bound pay scale to regular Government employees, in accordance with the earlier circulars issued by the State Government dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999. 21. In the present case, the petitioners were working as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department, and it is an undisputed position that Shiksha Karmi were not employees of the State Government until their absorption into the School Education Department pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government dated 30.06.2018. Before such absorption, their appointment, service conditions, and other benefits were governed by the statutory framework applicable to Panchayat employees, and not by the rules or circulars applicable to State Government employees. 22. Therefore, since the petitioners were admittedly the employees of the Panchayat 7 Department before the absorption policy came into force, they cannot claim the status of a Government Servant for the purpose of seeking the benefit of time-bound pay scale or Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017. Their service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, the Rules of 2012, or any other rules framed under Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which regulate the service conditions of Panchayat employees. 23. Thus, in view of the clear distinction between State Government employees and Panchayat cadre employees, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the Circular dated 10.03.2017 or the earlier circulars dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999, as those circulars apply solely to Government servants of the State, and not to employees appointed under the Panchayat department. 24. The distinguishable feature of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) are that she was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 29.07.2005 and was posted at Government Primary School, Narayanpur. On 01.07.2011, the State Government, Department of Finance and Planning issued a Circular regarding Kramonnati Vetanman to the employees. The Department of Panchayat and Rural Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, also issued a Circular dated 02.11.2011 regarding Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 10 years of service. On 17.05.2013, the department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued another circular with respect to the equalisation of pay scale between Government Teachers and Teacher Panchayat after completion of 08 years of their services. Further, vide circular 8 dated 14.11.2014, the earlier circular dated 02.11.2011 was cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013. The petitioner was granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman vide order dated 15.01.2020, but the said order was cancelled vide order dated 29.02.2020 on the ground that the Circular dated 02.11.2011 has already been cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013 vide order dated 14.11.2014, and since the petitioner, who has not completed 10 years of her service in the cadre, was not entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman. While passing the order dated 15.01.2020, the authorities had considered the circulars dated 07.03.2019, 06.04.2019, and granted Kramonnati Vetanman to Sona Sahu with effect from 01.08.2015 and thereafter the concerned authority sou motu re-considered the order dated 15.01.2020 and passed the order on 29.02.2020, by which the benefit granted to Smt. Sona Sahu was cancelled. While considering the matter, the concerned authority had not consider the circular dated 10.03.2017 and 07.03.2019. In the peculiar facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) was granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman, vide order dated 28.02.2024, passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023. The challenge of the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023, and Review Petition No. 147/2024 is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2025, passed in SLP (C) Diary No. 58525/2024, by observing that in the peculiar facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu, no interference is called for, and accordingly, the SLP(C) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. In the present case, the petitioners are appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi by the Panchayat Department. They were not government employees till 2018, when their services were absorbed by the school 9 education department. Therefore, they cannot claim parity and benefit at par as has been granted to Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023). 26. Further, Clauses 4 and 5 of the absorption order dated 30.06.2018 clearly restrict the grant of any benefit to the employees of the Panchayat Department whose services have been absorbed with the school education department for the benefit of arrears prior to 01.07.2018. Clauses 4 and 5 of the absorption order dated read as under: “4/ शि्ቌक (एल.बी.) सं व्ቇ क देय संमस्त लभ क लिलय संव क ्ቇणना सं विवलिलयना दिदेनाक 01 जुलई 2018 सं क जुय्ቇ। 5/ दिदेनाक 01 जुलई 2018 क पू#व क अवलि% क लिलय विकसं भ ्ቚकर क एरिरयसं क पू्ቔत नाीሻ+ ीሻ्ቇ।" 27. On 06.04.2019, the State Government School Education Department issued another Circular with respect to the further proceedings under the Rules of 2019, in which it has been provided that: " इसं विवभ्ቇ ቛኋर जुर सं विवलिलयना विनादे. कम क एक दिदेना क 30.06.2018 क क वि/क 5 म0 ्ቢ्ቖ उल्लखि6त ीሻ7, विक दिदेना क 01.07.2018 क पू#व क अवलि% क लिलए विकसं भ ्ቚकर क एरिरयसं क पू्ቔत नाीሻ ीሻ्ቇ अቕኋ त पू#व क एरिरयसं स्क# ल शि्ቌ विवभ्ቇ ቛኋर देय नाीሻ+ ीሻ9्ቇ। पू#व म0 शि्ቌक (पू चायत/ ना्ቇरय विनाकय) सं व्ቇ क कम चार, जु वत मना म0 शि्ቌक एल.बी. सं व्ቇ क रूपू म0 कय रत ीሻ<, क सं विवलिलयना पू#व क अवलि% क ल विबीत स्वत्व9 क भ्ቇतना पू्ቔतनासंर सं बी लि%त विवभ्ቇ ቛኋर ीሻ विकय जुय्ቇ।" 28. The present writ appeal has been filed by the 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). 10 The petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department between 2008 and 2013, 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. 29. 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 equal treatment must be similarly situated in all material aspects, which is not the case here. 30. 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. 11 31. 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 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. 32. 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.” 5 With respect to the employees who entered service on or after 2008, their writ appeals have been decided in the aforesaid Writ Appeal No. 191/2026. So far as the employees who entered service prior to 2008 are concerned, their writ appeals have been decided by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 193/2026. In the present writ appeal as well as in the writ petition, the petitioners have not 12 specifically pleaded the dates of their entry into service. However, from the documents of appointment annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P/1, it transpires that some of the petitioners were appointed after 2008, while some were appointed prior to 2008. Therefore, the case of the writ appellants who were appointed prior to 2008 has been considered in light of the fact that Writ Appeal No. 193/2026 has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026, and their cases are similar to those of the present writ appellants. Accordingly, relevant portions of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 193/2026 are also taken into consideration while deciding the present appeal, which are as under: “20. When the petitioners in the present writ petition were appointed between 2008 and 2013, they had not completed 10 years of their service on the date when the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was issued. 21. From a bare perusal of the Circular dated 10.03.2017, it is abundantly clear that the said circular does not deal with or extend benefits to the Teachers belonging to the Panchayat Cadre, including Shiksha Karmi. The circular specifically provides for the grant of first-time- bound pay scale and second-time-bound pay scale to regular Government employees, in accordance with the earlier circulars issued by the State Government dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999. 22. In the present case, the petitioners were working as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department, and the Shiksha Karmi were not the employees of the State Government until their absorption into the School Education Department pursuant to the 13 policy decision of the State Government dated 30.06.2018. Before such absorption, their appointment, service conditions, and other benefits were governed by the statutory framework applicable to Panchayat employees, and not by the rules or circulars applicable to State Government employees. 23. Therefore, since the petitioners were admittedly the employees of the Panchayat Department before the absorption policy came into force, they cannot claim the status of a Government Servant for the purpose of seeking the benefit of time-bound pay scale or Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017. Their service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, the Rules of 2012, or any other rules framed under Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which regulate the service conditions of Panchayat employees.” 6 They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.191/2026, and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 7 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 Writ Appeal No.191/2026 and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.191/2026 and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026 decided on 13.03.2026. 14 8 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.191/2026 and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok