1 2026:CGHC:24837-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 489 of 2026 1 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar -Bhatapara (Respondent No. 4 In W.P.S. No.10335 Of 2019 ). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Raviprabha Sahu S/o Ram Singh Sahu , Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Primary School Junvani, Block Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner In W.P.S. No.10335 Of 2019). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Respondent No. 1 In.W.P.S. No.10335 Of 2019 3 - Secretary Department Of Panchayat, State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh , Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, -Raipur District - Chhattisgarh( Respondent No. 2 In W.P.S. No.10335 Of 2019) 4 - District Education Officer , Baloda Bazar, District -Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In W.P.S. No.10335 Of 2019 ) 5 - Block Education Officer, Block Bilaigarh District -Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 5 In W.P.S. No.10335 Of 2019 ) .. Respondent(s) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.06.23 10:51:58 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. U. P. S. Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Prasun 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 19/06/2026 1. Present is a writ appeal against the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.S. No. 10335/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, and the petitioner was granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 10 years of his service, as per the circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the State Government. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) vide order dated 20.06.2005 and joined his duties on 23.06.2005. After successfully completing the prescribed two-year probation period on 20.06.2007, his services were regularized by order dated 16.01.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly and was subsequently absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) from the Panchayat Department with effect from 01.07.2018 by order dated 18.08.2018. The State Government, through Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the General Administration Department, has provided for the grant of Kramonnati Pay Scale to teachers and lecturers on completion of 10 years of qualifying service in 3 cases where regular promotion is not available. The petitioner contends that, having completed more than 10 years of continuous service from the date of his initial appointment, he became entitled to the benefit of the first Kramonnati Pay Scale. According to him, the benefit ought to have been extended to him with effect from the date he became eligible under the applicable policy; however, despite the fulfilment of all requisite conditions, the respondents have not granted him the said benefit. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has repeatedly approached the respondent authorities by submitting representations requesting the grant of the Kramonnati Pay Scale, but no effective decision has been taken thereon. Similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit under the Government policy, whereas his claim has remained unattended without any justifiable reason. The inaction on the part of the respondents, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant him the benefit of the Kramonnati Pay Scale along with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 3. The respondents denied the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Kramonnati Pay Scale on completion of 10 years of service as claimed by him. The State Government, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, by Circular dated 28.04.2015, had withdrawn/cancelled the earlier Circular dated 02.11.2011 under which the benefit of Kramonnati Pay Scale had 4 been extended to the Teacher (Panchayat) cadre. In view of the cancellation of the said policy, no vested right survived in favour of the petitioner to claim the benefit of Kramonnati under the Panchayat Department. The petitioner relied on the Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the General Administration Department, which is wholly misplaced. On the date of issuance of the said circular, the petitioner was serving as a Shiksha Karmi/Assistant Teacher under the Panchayat Department and not under the School Education Department. The petitioner's services were absorbed in the School Education Department only with effect from 01.07.2018. Therefore, the provisions of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 were not applicable to the petitioner at the relevant time. The benefits available under the School Education Department can be extended only in accordance with the rules governing that department, and the service rendered by the petitioner under the Panchayat Department cannot be counted for the purpose of grant of Kramonnati after his absorption. The communication dated 30.08.2019 was issued in compliance with the order passed by this Court in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 535 of 2019, whereby the petitioner's representation was duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order. The petition virtually seeks modification of the Government Circular dated 28.04.2015, which embodies a policy decision of the State Government and can be altered only by the Government itself. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the 5 petitioner's case was squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in "Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others" decided on 28.02.2024 in W.A. No. 261/2023. The learned Single Judge observed that although the earlier Circular dated 02.11.2011 had been withdrawn with retrospective effect, the subsequent Circular dated 10.03.2017 independently conferred the benefit of first and second Kramonnati Vetanman upon Assistant Teachers on completion of 10 and 20 years of service respectively. The Court found that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (Panchayat) in the year 2005 and later absorbed in the School Education Department, had completed the requisite period of service and could not be denied the benefit merely on the ground that he was originally appointed under the Panchayat Department. Following the law laid down by the Division Bench, which had attained finality upon dismissal of the review petition by this Court and the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 30.08.2019 rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the respondents to grant Kramonnati Vetanman to the petitioner in terms of the Circular dated 10.03.2017, along with all consequential benefits, vide its order dated 08.09.2025. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10335 of 2019, respondent No. 4 preferred a Review Petition on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in treating the respondent-writ petitioner as being governed by the General Administration Department 6 Circular dated 10.03.2017 during the period she served under the Panchayat establishment. It was also the ground that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat cadre and her service conditions were exclusively governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules, which constituted a distinct and self- contained service framework, separate from the School Education Department cadre. The Circular dated 10.03.2017 was applicable only to Assistant Teachers under the School Education Department and not to Panchayat cadre employees, and therefore, the reliance placed upon the said circular while granting the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman suffered from a patent error. However, the said Review Petition was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn by the review petitioner/present writ appellant vide order dated 07.04.2026 with liberty to file writ appeal. Thereafter, the present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has fallen into error in extending the benefit of the General Administration Department Circular dated 10.03.2017 to the writ petitioner by treating him as an employee of the School Education Department cadre during the period when he was admittedlyserving as a Shiksha Karmi/Assistant Teacher under the Panchayat establishment. It is submitted that the respondent's service conditions were exclusively governed by the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules framed thereunder, which constituted a distinct and self-contained statutory regime. Since the respondent was absorbed into the School Education 7 Department only with effect from 01.07.2018, any benefit flowing from policies applicable to the School Education Department could not have been claimed by reckoning service rendered under the Panchayat cadre. The learned Single Judge, therefore, erred in overlooking the legal distinction between the two cadres and in granting Kramonnati by counting the respondent's Panchayat service. 7. He would further submit that the reliance placed upon the decision in Smt. Sona Sahu (supra) is misconceived. According to him, Sona Sahu was decided in the peculiar factual background where the benefit of Kramonnati had already been granted and was subsequently withdrawn by the authorities, thereby involving the question of deprivation of an accrued benefit. The present case stands on an entirely different footing, as no such benefit was ever granted to the respondent. It is submitted that the distinction between withdrawal of an existing benefit and conferment of a fresh benefit has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the subsequent decision of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No. 193 of 2026, wherein this Court, after considering the statutory framework governing Panchayat teachers and the scope of the Circular dated 10.03.2017, held that Panchayat cadre employees cannot claim parity with School Education Department teachers merely on account of their subsequent absorption. It is further argued that the issue now stands concluded by the subsequent decision of this Court, passed on 13.03.2026, in W.A. No. 191/2026 and 193/2026, and the judgment rendered in W.A. No. 193/2026, it has been held that the 8 Circular dated 10.03.2017 was intended for teachers borne on the School Education Department cadre and did not govern the service conditions of Panchayat cadre teachers. The said Writ Appeal No. 191/2026 arose out of the W.P.S. No. 11976/2025 (Jeewan Lal Banjara v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026 arose out of W.P.S. No. 11982/2025 (Pushpalata Manikpuri and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) decided by the learned Single judge on 24.11.2025, and in W.P.S. Nos. 11976/2025 and 11982/2025, the order passed in the present case, i.e. order dated 08.09.2025, passed in W.P.S. 10335/2029 has been considered. This Court has also observed in the order passed in W.A. Nos. 191/2026 and 193/2026, that absorption with effect from 01.07.2018 created a fresh service relationship and that time-bound benefits, such as Kramonnati, are required to be reckoned in accordance with the applicable rules governing the absorbed cadre. On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel submits that the impugned order, having proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the respondent was entitled to claim the benefit of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 for the period of Panchayat service, is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III/Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on 20.06.2005 and joined service on 23.06.2005, whereafter he continuously discharged his duties and, upon completion of the requisite period of service, was 9 absorbed into the School Education Department as Assistant Teacher (L.B.) with effect from 01.07.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner had already completed more than 10 years of uninterrupted service by the time the General Administration Department issued Circular dated 10.03.2017, granting first Kramonnati after 10 years and the second Kramonnati after 20 years of service to Assistant Teachers, Teachers and Lecturers. The said circular does not make any distinction between teachers initially appointed under the School Education Department and those who were appointed under the Panchayat establishment and subsequently absorbed. Placing strong reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Smt. Sona Sahu (supra), it is submitted that this Court, after considering the effect of withdrawal of the earlier Circular dated 02.11.2011 and the subsequent Circular dated 10.03.2017, held that an employee who had completed 10 years of service on the date of issuance of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati. This Court further observed that as long as the Circular dated 10.03.2017 remained in force, the benefit flowing therefrom could not be denied. The said judgment attained finality upon dismissal of the review petition as well as the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is therefore argued that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra). The learned Single Judge rightly applied the circular and binding precedent and directed the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman, and no interference in the appeal is warranted. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the other respondents/state, 10 supporting the writ appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in granting the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman to the writ petitioner by applying the Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the General Administration Department without appreciating that, on the relevant date, the petitioner was serving as a Shiksha Karmi/Assistant Teacher under the Panchayat establishment and not under the School Education Department. It is submitted that the service conditions of Panchayat teachers were governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules, which constituted a separate and distinct statutory framework from that governing teachers borne on the School Education Department cadre. Learned State counsel would further submit that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was never intended to confer benefits upon Panchayat cadre employees and, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioner thereunder during the period of his Panchayat service. Reliance is placed upon the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeals Nos. 191/2026 and 193/2026, wherein the distinction between Panchayat cadre teachers and School Education Department teachers has been recognized and it has been held that the benefit of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 cannot be claimed by counting service rendered under the Panchayat establishment before absorption. In the W.P.S. No. 11976/2025, the order of the present case passed by the learned Single Judge has been considered and distinguished from the case of the writ petitioner with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra) and dismissed the batch of writ petitions, in which the number of writ petitioners were 11 claiming Kramonnati Vetanman on the basis of the circular dated 10.03.2017, which was the subject matter of W.A. No. 193/2026 and W.A. 191/2026. It is further argued that the petitioner was absorbed into the School Education Department only with effect from 01.07.2018, thereby creating a fresh service relationship, and any entitlement to time-bound promotional benefits, including Kramonnati, could arise only in accordance with the rules applicable to the absorbedcadre from the date of such absorption. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge deserves to be set aside. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition, review petition and the present writ appeal and gone through their respective pleadings. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the core issue involved in the present appeal is whether the respondent/writ petitioner, who was admittedly appointed and served as a Shiksha Karmi/Assistant Teacher under the Panchayat establishment till his absorption into the School Education Department on 01.07.2018, is entitled to claim the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the General Administration Department Circular dated 10.03.2017 by reckoning the service rendered by him under the Panchayat cadre. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner's initial appointment on 20.06.2005, his regularization and subsequent absorption in the School Education Department. The controversy revolves around the applicability of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 to 12 employees who were serving under the Panchayat establishment at the relevant point of time. 12. The learned Single Judge granted relief to the petitioner relying upon the order passed by this Court in Smt. Sona Sahu (supra). In Sona Sahu, the controversy therein arose in the context of cancellation of a benefit which had already been granted to the employee, and this Court examined the effect of non-consideration of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 while withdrawing such benefit. The judgment did not directly examine the broader issue as to whether a Panchayat cadre employee, prior to absorption, formed part of the School Education Department cadre or whether service rendered under the Panchayat establishment could invariably be counted for extending benefits under policies framed exclusively for the School Education Department. 13. It is necessary to notice here the circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the State Government with respect to the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to the Assistant Teachers/Teachers and Lecturers, which is as under:- छत्तीसगढ़ शासन समान्य प्रशासन विभाग मात्रालय माहानदी भान , नय रायपुरा क्रमांक एफ 10-1/2006/1-3 नया रायापुरा, दिनक 10/03/2017 प्रति, शासन क समांस् तिभाग, अध्याक्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ राजस् मांण्डल, ति$लसपुरा समांस् तिभागध्याक्ष, समांस् सभागयाक्, समांस् कलक्टस', छत्तीसगढ़. 13 तिषया)- सहायाक शिशाक्षक, क- क्रमां-न्नति नमांन प्रया तिकया जन $$/। सभा')- इस तिभाग क2 समांसख्याक पुरिरापुत्र दिनक 24.04.2006. इस तिभाग क सर्भिभा7 पुरिरापुत्र द्वारा शिशाक्षक सग' मां9 सहायाक शिशाक्षक शिशाक्षक था व्याख्या क- समांन्या प्रशासन तिभाग क पुरिरापुत्र क्रमांक एफ 1-1/1/आप्र/99. दिनक 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 मां9 तिनतिहा शा> क अध्याधीन प्रथामां क्रमां-न्नति 12 ष' $ था तिद्वाया क्रमां-न्नति 24 ष' $ प्रन तिकया गया हा@। तित्ती तिभाग क ज्ञापुन क्रमांक 216/स- 2802/10/तित्ती/ तिनयामां / चारा, दिनक 04.08.2010 ( तित्ती तिनCशा 32/2010) द्वारा क्रमां-न्नति या-जन क- सशा-धिधी करा शिशाक्षक था व्याख्या सग' क- प्रथामां उच्चरा समांयामांन नमांन 10 ष' $ ए तिद्वाया उच्चरा समांयामांन नमांन 20 ष' $ न क- तिनर्ण'या शिलया गया हा@। 2/ अए उपुरा-क् तिनर्ण'या क पुरिराप्रक्ष्या मां9 राज्या शासन द्वारा तिनर्ण'या शिलया गया हा@ तिक इस तिभाग क सर्भिभा7 पुरिरापुत्र दिनक 24.04.2006 क2 क तिडक-2 मां9 ' सहायक शिशाक्षक' क- प्रथामां क्रमां-न्नति 10 ष' $ ए तिद्वाया क्रमां-न्नति 20 ष' $ प्रन क2 जए। 3/ उपुरा-क् तिनर्ण'या क स$धी मां9 याहा स्पष्ट तिकया ज हा@ तिक क्रमां-न्नति क2 या तिशिथा क अनसरा क ल कल्पुतिनक न तिनधी'रार्ण तिकया जएग ए तिकस प्रकरा क एरिरायास' या नहाM हा,ग। 4/ याहा आशा तित्ती तिभाग क कम्प्याOटरा क्रमांक एफ-2017-01- 01093 दिनक 09.02.2017 द्वारा P गई सहामांति क आधीरा पुरा जरा तिकया गया हा@। छत्तीसगढ़ क राज्यपुल क नमा स तथा आदीशानसरा, सहा/- (एमा.आरा. ठाक रा) अरा सशिचा छत्तीसगढ़ शासन समांन्या प्रशासन तिभाग 14. The learned Single Judge, in the present writ petition, considered that the circular dated 10.03.2017 does not provide its applicability to only the government teachers and non-applicability of the Teachers (Panchayat) or (Local Bodies). However, para 2 of the circular dated 10.03.2017, clearly provides that "Assistant Teachers" as referred in circular dated 24.04.2006 issued by the department. It is also necessary to notice the clarification circular dated 24.04.2006 issued by the State Government, which is as under:- 14 छत्तीसगढ़ शासन समान्य प्रशासन विभाग मात्रालय दीऊ कल्यण सिंस(हा भान रायपुरा क्रमांक एफ: 10-1/2006/1-3 रायापुरा दिनक 24/04/2006 प्रति शासन क समांस् तिभाग अध्याक्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ राजस् मांडल, ति$लसपुरा समांस् तिभागध्याक्ष, समांस् कलक्टस', छत्तीसगढ़ तिषया)- शिशाक्षक सग' क- तिद्वाया क्रमां-न्नति क स$धी मां9 । 000 शिशाक्षक सग' क- शिशाक्ष तिभाग क भाR तिनयामां क अनसरा 12 ष' उपुरा कमां-न्नति/ रिराष्ठ नमांन दिया जन क प्रधीन हा-न स शिशाक्षक सग' क- तिद्वाया कमां-न्नति क लभा प्रप् हा- राहा था। 2/ राज्या शासन न तिचारा-पुरा याहा तिनर्ण'या शिलया हा@ तिक शिशाक्षक सग' क- भा क्रमां-न्नति क लभा दिया जया । अ) राज्या शासन क तिनर्ण'यानसरा शिशाक्षक सग' क- तिनम्ननसरा कमां-न्नति क लभा या हा-ग :- कमांक पु प्रराम्भिWक नमांन प्रथामां क्रमां-न्नति 12 ष' $ तिद्वाया क्रमां-न्नति 24 ष' $ 1 2 3 4 5 1. सहायाक शिशाक्षक 4000-6000 5000-8000 5500-9000 2. शिशाक्षक 5000-8000 5500-9000 6500-10500 3. व्याख्या 5500-9000 6500-10500 7500-12000 3/ क्रमां-न्नति क शिलए समांन्या प्रशासन तिभाग क पुरिरापुत्र कमांक एफ: 1- 1/1/आप्र/99, दिनक 17.3.1999/ 19.4.1999 मां9 तिनतिहा अन्या सभा शाC याथा लगO हा-ग। तिद्वाया कमां-न्नति क लभा दिनक 1.8.2003 स या हा-ग जिजसक आर्थिथा7क लभा मांहा मांचा' 2006 (अप्र@ल, 2006 मां9 या) क न स दिया जयाग । 4/ न तिनधी'रार्ण मां9 तिसगति आन पुरा उसक तिनराकरार्ण तित्ती तिभाग क ज्ञापुन दिनक 23.12.2004 ए 5.5.2004 द्वारा तिकया जग । 5/ इस क्रमां-न्नति क2 स्कZ ति पुरा तित्ती तिभाग क याO. ओ. क्रमांक 121/ति/तिन/चारा/2005 दिनक 23.3.2006 द्वारा सहामांति प्रप् क2 गई हा@। छत्तीसगढ़ क राज्यापुल क नमां स था आशानसरा (एस. आरा. सजकरा) अरा सशिचा छत्तीसगढ़ शासन समांन्या प्रशासन तिभाग 15. While considering the W.P.S. No. 11009/2025 and other batches of writ petitions, from which the Writ Appeals Nos. 191/2026 and 193/2026 arise, the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide its order 15 dated 24.11.2025, considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.S. No. 10335/2019, decided on08.09.2025, and distinguished the facts of the case and held that the writ petitioners in W.P.S. Nos. 11009/2025 and the batch of writ petitions are not entitled to similar relief and were dismissed the writ petitions by the order dated 24.11.2025. The relevant part of the order dated 24.11.2025 passed in W.P.S. No. 11009/2025 and other batch of petitions is also necessary to be quote here, which is as under:- “31. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Raviprabha Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WP(S) No. 10335/2019 has granted kramonnati vetanman to the petitioner as per circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and the coordinate Bench has taken into consideration that the case of the petitioner Raviprabha Sahu's case is similar to Smt. Sona Sahu (Supra), therefore, if this Court intends to take differ view from the judgment of Raviprabha case then the matter should be referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the matter for constituting a larger Bench and tosubstantiate this submission, the petitioners have referred to Rule 32 and 33 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 32. To appreciate this submission, this Court has gone through the Rule 32 and 33 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 which reads as under: "32. (1)A Judge sitting alone may refer any proceeding pending before him to the Chief Justice with recommendation that it be placed before a Bench of two Judges when it involves a question of law of public importance. (2)A Judge sitting alone shall refer any proceeding pending before him to the Chief Justice with a recommendation that it be placed before a Bench of 16 two Judges, if:- (i) it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or any statutory enactment OR (ii) it is considered that the decision in the proceeding involves reconsideration of a decision of a Judge sitting alone. (3) In a proceeding of the nature referred to in sub-rule (1) of this rule, the referring Judge may refer a stated question(s) or may recommend that the proceeding itself be heard and decided by the Bench to which it is referred. (4) In cases of the nature referred to in clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of this rule, the proceeding shall be heard and decided by the Bench to which it is referred. (5) In proceedings of the nature referred to in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of this rule, the referring judge shall refer a stated question(s) and shall dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision of the Bench on the question(s) referred to it. 33. If a Judge sitting alone considers that the decision of the proceeding pending before him involves reconsideration of a decision of two or more Judges, he may refer it to the Chief Justice with a recommendation that it be placed before an appropriate Bench for a decision on a stated question(s). The referring Judge shall then dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision of the Bench on the question(s) referred to it." 33. From perusal of the paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Raviprabha Sahu (Supra), it is quite vivid that the coordinate Bench has held that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Supra) and has relied upon the circular dated 10.03.2017 and held that 17 the circular dated 10.03.2017 is the foundation of the case of the petitioner Raviprabha, as such, it is incumbent upon the present petitioners to establish that their cases are similar to Smt. Sona Sahu and the circular dated 10.03.2017 is applicable in their cases with full force which has been issued for granting kramonnati to employees of the State Government. It is pertinent to mention here that after judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench on 08.09.2025, the State has clarified the circular dated 10.03.2017 which reads as under: " तिषयाग' सर्भिभा7 पुरिरापुत्र क कZ पुया अल-कन करा9। 2/ समांन्या प्रशासन तिभाग क पुरिरापुत्र क्रमांक एफ 10- 1/2006/1-3 दिनक 24.04.2006 क2 क तिडक 2 मां9 " सहायाक शिशाक्षक" क सहायाक शिशाक्षक (एल.$) क सभा' मां9 त्पुया' याहा हा@ तिक सतिशिलयान पुश्चा ऐस सहायाक शिशाक्षक (एल.$) स हा@, जिजनक2 शासक2या सए सहायाक शिशाक्षक (एल.$) क रूपु मां9 10 ष' हा- चाक2 हा@, उन्हा9 प्रथामां क्रमां-न्नति नमांन दिया जयाग। 3/ राज्या शासन द्वारा तिनर्ण'या शिलया गया हा@ तिक 10 ष' ए 20 ष' क2 गर्णन क्रमां-न्न या-जन प्रन करान क शिलए तिकया जन हा@, उसक Cutoff date क तिनधी'रार्ण तिनयाधिमां शिशाक्षक सग' मां9 सतिशिलयान तिशिथा दिनक स मांन्या तिकया ज। 4/ उपुरा-क् तिनCशा, क कड़ाई स पुलन सतिनश्चिश्चा तिकया जए।" 34. From perusal of the facts of the case and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Raviprabha Sahu(Supra) as well as classificatory circular issued by the State Government, the cases of the petitioners are different from the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Raviprabha Sahu (Supra), as such, the matter is not required to refer to the larger Bench, therefore, thesubmission made by the counsel for the petitioners to refer the matter to the larger Bench deserves to be rejected and accordingly. it is rejected.” 16. Subsequent to the order passed in the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra), this Court had occasion to consider the legal distinction between Panchayat cadre teachers and teachers borne on the School Education Department cadre in Writ Appeal No. 191/2026 and Writ 18 Appeal No. 193/2026, which arose out of the order dated 24.11.2025 and dismissed the writ appeals vide order dated 13.03.2026. This Court, after considering the provisions governing Panchayat employees, the Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules and the scheme of absorption dated 01.07.2018, held that Panchayat cadre teachers constituted a separate class governed by a distinct statutory framework and that mere absorption into the School Education Department did not automatically entitle them to claim all service benefits by counting their previous Panchayat service unless specifically provided by the governing rules or policy. The Division Bench further held that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was intended to operate in respect of the cadre governed by the School Education Department and that entitlement to Kramonnati thereunder could not be claimed by reckoning service rendered under the Panchayat establishment prior to absorption. The aforesaid view has been reiterated in W.A. Nos. 191/2026 and 193/2026, wherein the distinction between the two cadres and the effect of absorption were specifically considered. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the principles laid down in W.A. Nos. 191/2026 and 193/2026, decided on 13.03.2026 by this Court, directly govern the controversy involved in the present case. Since the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner admittedly remained under the Panchayat establishment till 01.07.2018 and the Circular dated 10.03.2017 has been held not to govern Panchayat cadre employees for the period before absorption, the learned Single Judge was not justified in extending the benefit of Kramonnati by counting the service 19 rendered by the petitioner under the Panchayat cadre solely on the basis of the decision in Smt. Sona Sahu (supra). In view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncements of this Court clarifying the legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the claim of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is liable to be examined in accordance with the rules and policies applicable to the School Education Department from the date of his absorption and not by reckoning his entire Panchayat service for the purpose of grant of Kramonnati under the Circular dated 10.03.2017. 18. Consequently, the present writ appeal deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10335 of 2019 is hereby set aside, and the Writ Petition (S) No. 10335/2019 filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner stands dismissed. 19. No order as to costs Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok