Absorbed Panchayat employees are ineligible for government time-bound pay scales for their pre-absorption service.

The appellants were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and Grade-III (Assistant Teachers/Teachers/Lecturers) under the Panchayat Department between 1998 and 2008

On 30.06.2018, the State Government issued a policy absorbing these employees into the School Education Department

The appellants filed a writ petition (WPS No. 11792/2025) seeking the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) based on a Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, claiming parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (WA No. 261/2023)

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 24.11.2025

The appellants challenged this dismissal before the Division Bench, accompanied by an application for condonation of a 27-day delay, which the court allowed

1. Whether the appellants, as erstwhile employees of the Panchayat Department (Shiksha Karmi), are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 prior to their absorption into the State Government service.

Circular dated 10.03.2017, which grants time-bound pay scales specifically to regular Government employees after 10 and 20 years of service

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which distinguish Panchayat employees from State Government servants

Absorption Order dated 30.06.2018, specifically Clauses 4 and 5, which restrict the grant of arrears or benefits for the period prior to 01.07.2018

The Court observed that the issue was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Writ Appeal No. 193/2026

It reasoned that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 applies exclusively to regular Government servants and does not extend to the Panchayat cadre, including Shiksha Karmis

Until their absorption into the School Education Department on 01.07.2018, the appellants were governed by Panchayat-specific service rules and not the rules applicable to State Government employees

The Court further noted that the absorption policy explicitly prohibits claiming any benefits or arrears for the period prior to the date of absorption

Regarding the reliance on Smt. Sona Sahu, the Court distinguished that case as being decided on "peculiar facts" involving different circulars and did not establish a general rule of parity for all absorbed employees

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order

The Court concluded that there was no perversity or infirmity in the impugned order and followed the findings of the coordinate bench in WA No. 193/2026