1 2026:CGHC:13368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3731 of 2023 1 - Neelmani Sahu S/o Shri Guru Charan Sahu Aged About 39 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Malgaon, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 2 - Dupendra Kashyap S/o Shri Sonadhar Kashyap Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Barda, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3 - Pooran Ram Kashyap S/o Shri Panroo Ram Kashyap Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Satosha, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Sunita Kashyap D/o Shri Pankaj Kashyap Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Adawal, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 5 - Ramnath Baghel W/o Shri Dinbandhu Baghel Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Karitgaon, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 6 - Sangram Nag S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Nag Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Cholnar, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 7 - Devnarayan Nag S/o Shri J.L. Nag Aged About 46 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Dabpal, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 8 - Bhunesh Kumar Netam S/o Shri Jagat Ram Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Hatguda, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Kamini Acharya W/o Shri Ramesh Acharya Aged About 43 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Jharumargaon, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 10 - Ku. Smrita Dubey D/o Shri Jivan Dhar Dubey Aged About 48 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Borpadar, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 11 - Smt. Shanti Baghel W/o Shri Anant Ram Baghel Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Bayaguda, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 12 - Smt. Kiran Bajpai W/o Late Anil Bajpai Aged About 47 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School Kachar, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 13 - Sabhajeet Verma S/o Late Ishwar Dev Verma Aged About 44 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School Kachnar, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 14 - Shobha Ram Nishad S/o Shri Balram Nishad Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Primary School Barda, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 15 - Kulendra Singh Bharti S/o Shri Dayaluram Bharti Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Patelpara Ichchhapur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 16 - Lokesh Chandra S/o Shri Hemlal Chandra Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary Garda, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 17 - Smt. Phool Bai Netam D/o Shri Deval Singh Netam Aged About 46 Years Working As Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary Badepara Kalcha, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 18 - Smt. Prabha Thakur S/o Shri Nain Kumar Thakur Aged About 37 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary Takraguda, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 19 - Ku. Rajnisha Dhruw D/o Shri Laxminath Dhruw Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Chitrakot, 3 District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 20 - Haldhar Bharti S/o Shri Somaru Bharti Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Girls Primary Bajawand, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 21 - Ishwar Singh Kashyap S/o Shri Arjun Singh Kashyap Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary Rata Khandi, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) 22 - Smt. Chandra Jyoti Kashyap S/o Shri Amrit Kumar Kashyap Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Gadhiya, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Baster, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director (Education) Division Baster, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Goutam Khetarpal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19.03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- 4 “10.1 "That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for promotion on the post of Teacher (L.B.) with all other consequential monetary benefits including seniority from the date of promotion order dated 07.02.2022 of the identically placed Teacher.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2824 of 2023 (Maneesh Kumar Nayak and others vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 11.12.2025. It is jointly prayed that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:– “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 absorption upon completion of two years of service for a fresh class of employees. 5 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 6 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. 7 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 ” 3. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPS No. 2824 of 2023 (Maneesh Kumar Nayak and others vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 11.12.2025, and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in terms of and in line with the aforesaid judgment. 4. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha