1 / 4 2026:CGHC:19558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3658 of 2026 1 - Kishor Kumar Barman S/o Shri Cherka Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 2 - Surendra Sai Painkra S/o Shri Mayal Sai Painkra Aged About 52 Years R/o Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 3 - Amit Kumar Parker S/o Shri Baldaw Parker Aged About 43 Years R/o Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 4 - Dolnarayan Nayak S/o Vidya Charan Nayak Aged About 37 Years R/o Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 5 - Smt, Shashikala Tigga W/o Arvind Tigga Aged About 39 Years R/o Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 6 - Mukesh Ram Bhagat S/o Sidhu Ram Bhagat Aged About 37 Years R/o Posted As Teacher Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 7 - Smt, Neelam Tirkery W/o Bippin Kishor Tirkey Aged About 45 Years R/o Posted As Teacher Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 8 - Spor Tirkey S/o Sadho Teikey Aged About 36 Years R/o Posted As Assistant Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School Ankira, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 2 / 4 9 - Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Ramesh Kumar Bhardwaj Aged About 50 Years R/o Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Marol, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. 10 - Sahdev Ram Nag S/o Khakhalu Ram Nag Aged About 40 Years R/o Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Marol, Block Farsabahar, District Jashpur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Derector, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Commissioner Cum Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 5 - District Education Officer, District Jashpur C.G. 6 - Block Education Officer, Farsabahar,marol District Jashpur C.G. 7 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, District Jashpur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 28.04.2026 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of the benefits of KramonnatiVetanman on completion of 10 years of their services in view/ light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. Sona Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023 on 28.02.2024 and also in 3 / 4 view of the circular / order dated 10.03.2017 issued by the State Government of Chhattisgarh. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioners including the arrears of pay with interest from the date of the completion of 10 years of services till the actual payment of Kramonnati Vetanman within a stipulated period of time. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to disposed off the instant writ petition with the similar line as ordered / passed in the case of Smt. Sona Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023 on 28.02.2024. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are 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 petitioners and would submit that case of the petitioners is different than that of case of Sona Sahu. Petitioners were earlier employee of Panchayat Department and thereafter, they were absorbed in Education Department pursuant to policy decision taken by State Government on 30.06.2018. Petitioners were 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 / 4 4. Petitioners upon asking do not dispute the submission of learned State counsel with respect to their initial appointment under Panchayat Department by Janpad Panchayat as also decision in WP(S) No.11009 of 2025. 5. The 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.” 6. Since the facts of the case of petitioners 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) Saurabh JUDGE