1 CGHC010167272018 2026:CGHC:35494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4335 of 2018 1 - Kaushlesh Sahu S/o Late Jagdish Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years Working As Lecturer Panchayat Higher Secondary School - Suheka, Block - Fingeshwar District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dugesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Hridayram Sahu Aged About 43 Years Working As Lecturer Panchayat Government Higher School Parsada Joshi, Block - Fingeshwar , District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tejeshwar Kumar Dhruw S/o Lakhan Lal Dhruw Aged About 38 Years Working As Lecturer Panchayat Government Higher School Parsada Joshi Block Fingeshwar District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. 4 - Suresh Kumar S/o Kriparam Sahu Aged About 46 Years Working As Lecturer Panchayat Government Higher School - Panktiya Janpad Panchayat - Dhhura, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. 5 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Kripal Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Working As Lecturer Panchayat Government Higher School - Chhuiha, Block Fingeshwar District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Yuvrani Dhruw W/o Shri Chetan Dhruw Aged About 27 Years Working As Shikshak Panchayat Grade - II Government Middle School, Belar, Block Fingeshwar, District - Gariaband Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Cum Director , Directorate Panchayat Department Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Zila Panchayat Gariabad , Through Chief Executive Officer, Gareaband , District Gariaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Annexure P/1, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent from withdrawing the benefit of revised pay scale, regular pay scale, and other service benefit on the ground of non obtaining B.Ed. Degree, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to refund amount recovered if any, in the interest of justice. (iv) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed to the post of lecturer Panchayat/Teacher Panchayat under the provisions of Chhattisgarh under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules 2007, their date of appointment and designation are quoted as under:- S. No. Name of Petitioner Date of Appointment Post 1 Kaushlesh Sahu 09.07.2010 Lecturer Panchayat 2 Dugesh Sahu Kumar 11.11.2010 Lecturer Panchayat 3 Tejeshwar Kumar Dhruva 16.01.2010 Lecturer Panchayat 4 Suresh Kumar 27.05.2009 Lecturer Panchayat 3 S. No. Name of Petitioner Date of Appointment Post 5 Mahendra Kumar Sahu 24.06.2010 Lecturer Panchayat 6 Smt. Yuvrani Dhruv 14.06.2011 Teacher Panchayat He would further submit that the petitioners joined their duties, completed probation period, and were regularized with regular pay scale. Vide order dated 17.05.2013, the State Government issued a circular granting regular pay scale/revised pay scale to the petitioners. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 issued a letter stating that untrained Teachers (Panchayat) are not entitled to regular pay scale/revised pay scale and directed withdrawal of the said benefit without notice or opportunity of hearing. He would also submit that respondent No. 3 discontinued the regular pay scale benefits, and deductions are being made directly from salary without any formal recovery order. He would contend that petitioners hold D.Ed. degree/diplomas and meet training requirements; therefore, insistence on B.Ed. certificate is illegal. He would argue that the Rules 2007 permit relaxation of B.Ed./D.Ed. qualifications if qualified candidates are unavailable; the petitioners were appointed and confirmed after extending relaxation. He would further contend that the issue involved in the present matter is no more res integra and this issue has already been decided in the matter of Jayant Kumar Patle v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors, decided in WPS No.4271 of 2017 and other connected matters vide order dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure P/6). He would pray that the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No.3 and in turn, the said authority may be directed to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and submit that petitioners have not acquired the required qualifications for the post of 4 Teacher/Lecturer and they are not entitled to get benefits as claimed for. 4. Heard. 5. Having considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, the petition is disposed of granting liberty in favour of the petitioners to make representation(s) before the respondent No.3 and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide the representation(s) of the petitioners, if so made by them, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of representation(s). 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim