Facts
The Appellants (18 Teachers and Assistant Teachers) were originally appointed as Shiksha Karmi (Grade II and III) under the Panchayat Department between 2008 and 2013
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 18 of WA 191/2026They sought the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) based on a State Government Circular dated 10.03.2017.
Source reference: no citationThe Appellants’ services were later absorbed into the School Education Department effective from 01.07.2018 pursuant to a policy decision dated 30.06.2018
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 21, 26The Appellants challenged the Single Judge's order dated 24.11.2025, which dismissed their writ petition (WPS No. 13264/2025) seeking these benefits.
Source reference: no citationThe High Court first condoned a 38-day delay in filing the appeal before addressing the merits.
Source reference: para. 2Issues
1. Whether teachers appointed under the Panchayat Cadre (Shiksha Karmi) are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 for service rendered prior to their absorption into the School Education Department?
Source reference: para. 42. Whether the Appellants are entitled to parity with the judgment in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (WA No. 261/2023)?
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 24-25Law Applied
Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the General Administration Department, which provides for time-bound pay scales for Assistant Teachers in regular Government service after 10 and 20 years
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 17Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007
Source reference: no citationAbsorption Order dated 30.06.2018, specifically Clauses 4 and 5, which stipulate that all benefits and seniority for absorbed employees would be calculated from 01.07.2018 and no arrears would be paid for the prior period
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 22, 26Precedent of Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 24State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 31Reasoning
The Court observed that the Appellants were employees of the Panchayat Department, not the State Government, at the time the 2017 Circular was issued.
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 21Their service conditions were governed by Panchayat-specific rules, and they only attained the status of Government servants upon absorption on 01.07.2018.
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 22The 2017 Circular explicitly applied to regular Government employees who had completed 10 or 20 years of service; the Appellants did not meet this criteria as their prior service in the Panchayat cadre could not be equated to Government service for this benefit.
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 19-23Furthermore, the absorption policy explicitly barred any claims for arrears or financial benefits for the period preceding 01.07.2018.
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 26-27Regarding parity, the Court held that the Sona Sahu case was decided on "peculiar facts" and could not be claimed as a matter of right by the Appellants, who were not similarly situated.
Source reference: para. 4, quoting para. 24-25Holding
The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that Shiksha Karmis are not entitled to Kramonnati benefits under the 2017 Circular for their tenure under the Panchayat Department.
Adhering to the ratio in Writ Appeal No. 191/2026, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order.
Source reference: para. 5-6The writ appeal was dismissed, and the prayer for the grant of the time-bound pay scale was rejected.
Source reference: para. 6Original Court PDF
TULSI KUMARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in