Absorbed Panchayat Employees Not Entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman Under School Education Department Circulars

Twelve petitioners, working as Lecturers (L.B.), Head Masters, and Teachers (L.B.) in various government schools in District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, approached the High Court seeking the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-scale pay upgradation) upon completing 10 years of service

The petitioners relied on a previous Division Bench decision in Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (W.A. No. 261/2023) and a government circular dated 10.03.2017

The State contested the claim, arguing that the petitioners were originally employees of the Panchayat Department (Janpad Panchayat) and were only later absorbed into the Education Department as per a 2018 policy, making them ineligible under the specific circulars cited

Whether the petitioners, originally appointed under the Panchayat Department and later absorbed into the School Education Department, are entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman under the circular dated 10.03.2017

The Court applied the eligibility criteria outlined in the State Government’s circular dated 10.03.2017 regarding pay career progression

It further relied on the legal precedent established by a Coordinate Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS No. 11009 of 2025, which determined that employees governed by the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, who were designated as Shikshakarmis (Assistant Teacher/Teacher/Lecturer Panchayat) prior to their 2018 absorption, do not satisfy the criteria for benefits reserved for regular teachers of the School Education Department

The Court noted that the petitioners did not dispute their initial status as Panchayat Department employees appointed by the Janpad Panchayat

Applying the reasoning from WPS No. 11009 of 2025, the Court observed that because the petitioners were not originally teachers of the School Education Department but were governed by separate rules under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, they failed to fulfill the conditions laid out in the 10.03.2017 circular

The Court distinguished their case from the Sona Sahu precedent, finding that the petitioners' history as employees of a separate statutory body (Panchayat) disqualified them from the specific relief sought, as their service seniority for Kramonnati purposes did not align with the requirements of the Education Department's policies prior to their absorption

Following the precedent set in WPS No. 11009 of 2025 (decided on 24.11.2025), the writ petition was dismissed