1 2026:CGHC:26963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6657 of 2025 1. Raj Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Kashi Vishwanath Tiwari Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government New Primary School, Khaira, Bhatapara, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Rajendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Babulal Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government New Primary School, Deehpara, Salkhan, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. Bhola Ram Kashyap S/o Dau Ram Kashyap Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government Primary School, Borda, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 4. Pratap Das Manuikpuri S/o Shri Chhedudas Manikpuri Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government New Primary School, Singhul, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Smt. Chandrika Dinkar W/o Shri Baliram Dinkar Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government New Primary School, Amanara, Hardi, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. Rajesh Kumar Sahu (Since Died) Through Legal Representatives 6 (A) Smt. Indira Sahu Wd/o Late Rajesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Podi (Rachha), Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6.(B) Nitish Kumar Sahu S/o Late Rajesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Podi (Rachha), Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.03 10:48:31 +0530 2 6.(C) Ku. Nilima Sahu D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Podi (Rachha), Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7. Sanad Kumar Pandey S/o Neelkanth Pandey Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government Primary School, Sendri, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 8. Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Dayal Yadav Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government Primary School, Mhaiwadih, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 9. Laxmi Prasad Dhiwar S/o Shri Tijram Dhiwar Aged About 49 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat In Government Primary School, Bodsara, Block And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector Janjgir-Champa And Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Primary Education Mission, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. District Education Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6. Block Education Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate For Respondent/ State Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. A.G. along with Mr. Shahil Singh, P.L. For Respondent No.5 Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 01/07/2026 3 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :- 10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) issued by the Respondent No.5, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG), by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing, setting aside and further correcting clause 2 of the order dated 18.05.2006 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Respondent No.5, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) whereby counting the service w.e.f. 18.05.2006 instead of 01.05.2005 as per policy of the State Government. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to extend the benefit of revised pay-scale as per order dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P/16) with effect from 01.05.2013 along with interest. 10.5 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioners. 4 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as Gurujis during the years 1999-2000 under the Education Guarantee Scheme. He submits that though the State Government issued a policy dated 23.04.2005 for conversion of all eligible contract teachers into Shiksha Karmi Grade-III with effect from 01.05.2005, the petitioners were excluded from the list of 168 teachers who were granted such benefit vide order dated 12.05.2005 by counting their service on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III w.e.f. 1.5.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted representations and also preferred writ petition before this Court claiming similar benefits and, during the pendency of W.P. No. 653 of 2002, the respondents, in their status report, accepted the claim of the petitioners. Consequently, the Collector issued an order dated 06.05.2006 and thereafter, acting upon the said order, respondent No.5 issued the order dated 18.05.2006 appointing/absorbing the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. (b) Learned counsel further submits that while issuing the order dated 18.05.2006, the respondents failed to extend to the petitioners the benefit of appointment and seniority with effect from 01.05.2005 in terms of the policy dated 23.04.2005 and the said benefit has already been extended to similarly situated 168 employees. As a consequence, the petitioners have been denied the benefit of the revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service under the Government order dated 17.05.2013. It is 5 further submitted that against the said inaction the petitioners approached this Court by filing WPS No. 3948 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2024 granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation. However, the said representation has been rejected by respondent No.5 vide the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without proper consideration of the petitioners' claim. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners were absorbed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III only vide order dated 18.05.2006 and, therefore, their services are liable to be counted from the date of their absorption. He further submits that the claim of the petitioners for grant of seniority with effect from 01.05.2005 and consequential benefit of the revised pay scale has been duly considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 11.04.2025, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially excluded from the benefit of the Government policy dated 23.04.2005, under which similarly situated contract teachers were converted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 12.05.2005 by extending the benefit of seniority with effect from 01.05.2005 . It is also not in dispute that only after the petitioners made 6 representations and during the pendency of W.P. No. 653 of 2002, the respondents accepted their claim in the status report and thereafter issued the orders dated 06.05.2006 and 18.05.2006 absorbing the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Thus, the delay in extending the benefit to the petitioners cannot be attributed to them. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that while similarly situated employees, who were covered by the policy dated 23.04.2005, were granted the benefit of appointment and seniority with effect from 01.05.2005 and consequently became entitled to the revised pay scale on completion of 8 years service under the Government order dated 17.05.2013, the petitioners have been denied the same merely because their orders of conversion were issued subsequently. The respondents have not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the case of the petitioners stands on a different footing from those employees who were extended the aforesaid benefits. 7. It is a settled principle of law that similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated against and once a particular benefit has been extended to one set of employees under the same policy, denial of the very same benefit to another identically situated set of employees would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the petitioners were granted the benefit of conversion subsequently, pursuant to their representations and the acceptance of their claim by the respondents, they cannot be 7 deprived of the consequential benefits flowing from the policy dated 23.04.2005 as also the revised pay scale order dated 17.5.2013. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to extend to the petitioners the benefit of the Government policy dated 23.04.2005 by reckoning their appointment/seniority with effect from 01.05.2005 and, consequently, to grant them the benefit of the revised pay scale in terms of the Government order dated 17.05.2013, if otherwise similarly situated employees have been extended such benefit. The consequential monetary and service benefits shall also follow. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti