1 2026:CGHC:17342-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 306 of 2026 1. Devki Markam W/o Santosh Kumar Markam Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Aamakhodra, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2. Bharat Lal Rahangdale S/o Gangaram Rahangdale Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Anjana, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3. Anil Kumar Chandravanshi S/o Durga Sahay Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Dongariya, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4. Bisnath Singh Dhurwey S/o Punau Singh Dhurwey Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Niwaspur, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5. Rajesh Kumar Kamde S/o Govind Ram Kamde Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Motimpur, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6. Shanti Meravi S/o Bent Ram Meravi Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Saripatera, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 7. Ramli Meravi W/o Jivan Lal Meravi Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Sutiya, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 8. Radhi Kushre W/o Vijay Kushre Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Baigatola, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.17 14:28:20 +0530 2 9. Champa Parte W/o Bhikham Singh Parte Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Barenda, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 10. Roshan Lal Markam S/o Jalam Singh Markam Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Kanya Ashram Jhalmala, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 11. Tek Singh Markam S/o Kasrat Singh Markam Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Sarenda, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 12. Kamal Singh Pandre S/o Bir Singh Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Bodalpani, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 13. Virendra Kumar Dharambahre S/o Natthoo Lal Dharambahre Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Baherakhar, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 14. Seema Dhurwey W/o Nandkumar Dhurwey Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Teacher At Govt. Middle School. Anjana, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 15. Gaindlal Baghel S/o Hausi Lal Baghel Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Bhimbhouri, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 16. Arjun Jogwanshi S/o Pheku Ram Jogwanshi Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Teacher At Govt. Middle School Bantipathra, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 17. Vishnu Prasad Dhritlahare S/o Phadal Ram Dhritlahare Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Silhati, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 18. Shyam Prasad Lanjhi S/o Bhagwat Ram Lanjhi Aged About 46 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Lalpur Khurd, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 19. Yashoda Dhurwey W/o Tukaram Dhurwey Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Baijalpur, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 20. Uttam Barvey W/o Shrawan Kumar Barvey Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Sili, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 21. Keshaw Lal Sinha S/o Phool Singh Sinha Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Tersingh, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 22. Suresh Chandravanshi S/o Tihari Chandravanshi Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Achanakpur, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 23. Kamala Jaiswal W/o Anil Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher At Govt. Primary School Achanakpur, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 24. Kavita Shrivastava W/o Manoj Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Boys Primary School Bodla, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 25. Susheel Kumar Jhariya S/o Shankar Lal Jhariya Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Bangaura, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 26. Krishna Kumar Dhurwey S/o Samar Singh Dhurwey Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Sajatola, Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 3. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Commissioner Cum Director Directorate Of Panchayat Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. District Education Officer District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6. Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat, Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 7. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 8. Block Education Officer Block Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Deepak Kaushik, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, an application seeking condonation of delay. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons assigned in the application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient 5 cause has been shown. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed and the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 13157 of 2025 (Devki Markam & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the State that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 193 of 2026 (Pushpalata Manikpuri vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 13.03.2026, observing as follows : “18. From perusal of the contents of the circular dated 10.03.2017, it is quite vivid that the Assistant Teachers, who were in Government service, are to be granted first Kramonnati Vetanman after 10 years of their service and second Kromonnati Vetanman after 20 years of their service, and the teachers and lecturers are to be granted first time-bound pay scale after 10 years of service and second time-bound pay scale after 20 years of service. 19. From pleadings made in Para-8.8 of the writ petition, undisputedly the petitioners have been appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III/Grade-II between the period of 1998 and 2008. It is also relevant to notice here paragraph 8.8 6 of the writ petition, which reads as follows: “8.8 Between 1998-2008, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat appointed the Petitioners in the post of Assistant Teacher Shikshakarmi Grade-3/Teacher- Shikshakarmi Grade 2. After completion of 2 years from the date of joining, the Petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Teachers were regularised by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and Teachers were regularised by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat.” 20. When the petitioners in the present writ petition were appointed between 2008 and 2013, they had not completed 10 years of their service on the date when the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was issued. 21. From a bare perusal of the Circular dated 10.03.2017, it is abundantly clear that the said circular does not deal with or extend benefits to the Teachers belonging to the Panchayat Cadre, including Shiksha Karmi. The circular specifically provides for the grant of first-time-bound pay scale and second-time-bound pay scale to regular Government employees, in accordance with the earlier circulars issued by the State Government dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999. 22. In the present case, the petitioners were working as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department, and the Shiksha Karmi were not the employees of the State Government until their absorption into the School Education Department pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government dated 30.06.2018. 7 Before such absorption, their appointment, service conditions, and other benefits were governed by the statutory framework applicable to Panchayat employees, and not by the rules or circulars applicable to State Government employees. 23. Therefore, since the petitioners were admittedly the employees of the Panchayat Department before the absorption policy came into force, they cannot claim the status of a Government Servant for the purpose of seeking the benefit of time-bound pay scale or Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017. Their service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, the Rules of 2012, or any other rules framed under Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which regulate the service conditions of Panchayat employees. 24. Thus, in view of the clear distinction between State Government employees and Panchayat cadre employees, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the Circular dated 10.03.2017 or the earlier circulars dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999, as those circulars apply solely to Government servants of the State, and not to employees appointed under the Panchayat department. 25. The distinguishable feature of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) are that she was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 29.07.2005 and was posted at Government Primary School, Narayanpur. On 01.07.2011, the State Government, Department of 8 Finance and Planning issued a Circular regarding Kramonnati Vetanman to the employees. The Department of Panchayat and Rural Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, also issued a Circular dated 02.11.2011 regarding Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 10 years of service. On 17.05.2013, the department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued another circular with respect to the equalisation of pay scale between Government Teachers and Teacher Panchayat after completion of 08 years of their services. Further, vide circular dated 14.11.2014, the earlier circular dated 02.11.2011 was cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013. The petitioner was granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman vide order dated 15.01.2020, but the said order was cancelled vide order dated 29.02.2020 on the ground that the Circular dated 02.11.2011 has already been cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013 vide order dated 14.11.2014, and since the petitioner, who has not completed 10 years of her service in the cadre, was not entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman. While passing the order dated 15.01.2020, the authorities had considered the circulars dated 07.03.2019, 06.04.2019, and granted Kramonnati Vetanman to Sona Sahu with effect from 01.08.2015 and thereafter the concerned authority sou motu re- considered the order dated 15.01.2020 and passed the order on 29.02.2020, by which the benefit granted to Smt. Sona Sahu was cancelled. While considering the matter, the concerned authority had not consider the circular dated 10.03.2017 and 07.03.2019. In the peculiar facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) was granted the benefit of 9 Kramonnati Vetanman, vide order dated 28.02.2024, passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023. The challenge of the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023, and Review Petition No. 147/2024 is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2025, passed in SLP (C) Diary No. 58525/2024, by observing that in the peculiar facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu, no interference is called for, and accordingly, the SLP(C) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 26. In the present case, the petitioners are appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi by the Panchayat Department. They were not government employees till 2018, when their services were absorbed by the school education department. Therefore, they cannot claim parity and benefit at par as has been granted to Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023). 27. Further, Clauses 4 and 5 of the absorption order dated 30.06.2018 clearly restrict the grant of any benefit to the employees of the Panchayat Department whose services have been absorbed with the school education department for the benefit of arrears prior to 01.07.2018. Clause 4 and 5 of the absorption order dated reads as under: “4/ शिक्षक (एल.बी.) सं वर्ग क देय संमस्त लभ क लिलय संव क र्गणना सं विवलिलयना दिदेनाक 01 जुलई 2018 सं क जुयर्ग। 5/ दिदेनाक 01 जुलई 2018 क पू#व क अवलि% क लिलय विकसं भ प्रकर क एरिरयसं क पूत्रत नाहीं+ हींर्ग।" 28. On 06.04.2019, the State Government School Education Department issued another Circular with respect to the further proceedings under the Rules of 10 2019, in which it has been provided that: " इसं विवभर्ग द्वार जुर सं विवलिलयना विनादे. कम क एक दिदेना क 30.06.2018 क क वि/क 5 म0 स्पष्ट उल्लखि6त हीं7, विक दिदेना क 01.07.2018 क पू#व क अवलि% क लिलए विकसं भ प्रकर क एरिरयसं क पूत्रत नाहीं हींर्ग अर्था त पू#व क एरिरयसं स्क# ल शिक्ष विवभर्ग द्वार देय नाहीं+ हीं9र्ग। पू#व म0 शिक्षक (पू चायत/ नार्गरय विनाकय) सं वर्ग क कम चार, जु वत मना म0 शिक्षक एल.बी. सं वर्ग क रूपू म0 कय रत हीं<, क सं विवलिलयना पू#व क अवलि% क ल विबीत स्वत्व9 क भर्गतना पूत्रतनासंर सं बी लि%त विवभर्ग द्वार हीं विकय जुयर्ग।" 29. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners seeking the benefit of Kramonnati under the Circular dated 10.03.2017, claiming parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023). The petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department between 1998 and 2008, and their services were regularized by the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respective Janpad and Zila Panchayats. They continued to serve under the Panchayat department till 2018, when they were absorbed into the School Education Department pursuant to the State Government policy dated 30.06.2018. Their service prior to absorption was governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules, 2007, and subsequent rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 30. The Circular dated 10.03.2017, on which the petitioners rely, specifically applies to Assistant Teachers under the School Education Department who have completed 10 years of service. In contrast, the petitioners’ service as Shiksha Karmi under the 11 Panchayat department cannot be treated as equivalent to service under the School Education Department. The factual distinction is material, and the principles of parity require that employees claiming equal treatment must be similarly situated in all material aspects, which is not the case here. 31. This has consistently held in WP(S) No. 208/2012, WP(S) No. 2530/2017, WP(S) No. 10335/2019, WP(S) No. 1021/2021, and WP(S) No. 3369/2021 that the services of the Shiksha Karmi governed by Panchayat rules are not entitled to pay scales or other benefits applicable to teachers of the School Education Department. The learned Single Judge rightly distinguished the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023), after independently examining the entitlement of the petitioners, concluded that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 does not apply to their service. 32. The learned Single Judge after adverting and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, elaborately considered various judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohan Vijay Nahar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others 2025 INSC 1296, State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, 2017 (1) SCC 148, Khoday Distiliaries Limited (Now known as Khoday India Limited) and Others vs. Shree Mahadeshwara Shahkara Sakkare Karkhane Limited Kollegal 2019 (4) SCC 376 and Ravi Prakash Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh order dated 08-09-2025 passed learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 10335/2019, decided the writ 12 petition filed by the writ appellants/petitioners in which, we do not find perversity or infirmity. The consideration of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is well merited based on a proper appreciation of the facts and law applicable to the case. 33. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra- court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 34. In view of the above, the writ appellants/petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023 (Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). Their claim under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 is, therefore, misconceived, and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 193 of 2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 193 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a 13 view other than what has been taken in WA No. 193 of 2026. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed in WA No. 193 of 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan