1 2026:CGHC:7724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1619 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Rathore S/o Jadbharat Rathore Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher R/o Village- Sonsari, Tahsil- Akaltara, Police Station Mulmula, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate Public Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Janjgir-Champa, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Janjgir-Champa, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Akaltara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat - Akaltara, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.12 13:32:44 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 5. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the Kramonati Vetanman with all the consequential benefit to the petitioner who have been completed the 10 years of service as per circular issued by the State Govt. dated 10.03.2017 and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of “Smt. Sona Sahu Vs. State of C.G. & Others” passed in WA No. 261 of 2023 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for Kramonnati Vetanman in terms of decision in case of Sona Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in W.A. No.261 of 2023, decided on 28.02.2024. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that case of the petitioner is different than that of case of Sona Sahu. Petitioner was earlier employee of 3 Panchayat Department and thereafter, he was absorbed in Education Department pursuant to policy decision taken by State Government on 30.06.2018. Petitioner was not appointed as regular Assistant Teacher by School Education Department but was appointed by Janpad Panchayat. Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the issue with regard to grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to such employee in WPS No.11009 of 2025 and other batch of writ petitions and has dismissed those writ petitions. 4. Petitioner upon asking do not dispute the submission of learned State counsel with respect to his initial appointment under Panchayat Department by Janpad Panchayat as also decision in WP(S) No.11009 of 2025. 5. Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the batch of writ petitions lead case bearing WPS No. 11009 of 2025 with regard to grant of Kramonnati to petitioners therein, has dismissed the writ petitions and observed thus :- “35. Considering the facts of the case that the petitioners till absorption in pursuance of the policy dated 30.06.2018 are not teachers of the School Education Department, they were shikshakarmis though their designation has been changed as Assistant Teacher (panchayat), Teacher (panchayat) and Lecturer (panchayat) respectively and they are governed by the separate rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, therefore, the petitioners are not fulfilling the criteria as laid down in the circular dated 10.03.2017, the bunch of the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, accordingly, they are dismissed.” 4 6. Since the facts of the case of petitioner as is identical to the facts of the case in WP(S) No.11009 of 2025 is not disputed, this petition is also dismissed in terms of order passed in WPS No.11009 of 2025 and other connected case decided on 24.11.2025. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza