Facts
The 37 petitioners, originally appointed as Shikshakarmis (Assistant Teachers, Teachers, and Lecturers) by Janpad Panchayats under the Panchayat Department, were later absorbed into the School Education Department of Chhattisgarh on June 30, 2018.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking the benefit of the 1st and 2nd Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale progression) upon completing 10 and 20 years of service respectively.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 1They relied on a State circular dated March 10, 2017, and the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (W.A. No. 261/2023).
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10.2The State contested the petition, arguing that as former Panchayat employees, the petitioners’ service conditions were governed by separate rules until their absorption in 2018.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3Issues
1. Whether the petitioners, originally appointed under the Panchayat Department and later absorbed into the School Education Department, are entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman based on their total length of service including their tenure under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 52. Whether the petitioners’ case is covered by the precedent in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh or by the dismissal in WP(S) No. 11009 of 2025.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 3 & 6Law Applied
The court applied the circular dated March 10, 2017, issued by the State of Chhattisgarh regarding the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10.2It further relied on the legal distinction between regular employees of the School Education Department and those governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 5The court followed the specific precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in WP(S) No. 11009 of 2025 (decided on 24.11.2025), which held that Shikshakarmis (Panchayat employees) do not fulfill the criteria for Kramonnati benefits under the 2017 circular because they were not "teachers of the School Education Department" prior to their 2018 absorption.
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 5-6Reasoning
The Court distinguished the petitioners’ service history from the requirements of the March 10, 2017, circular.
Source reference: no citationIt observed that until the policy-driven absorption on June 30, 2018, the petitioners were strictly Shikshakarmis (designated as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), etc.) and were governed by separate service rules under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, rather than the School Education Department's regular service rules.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 5The Court found that the petitioners did not dispute their initial appointment under the Panchayat Department or the similarity of their facts to the case of WP(S) No. 11009 of 2025.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 4Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners failed to meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit, as their service under the Panchayat Department could not be counted as regular service within the School Education Department for the purposes of Kramonnati.
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 5-6Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
It held that the petitioners are not entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman because they were not members of the School Education Department during the period for which the benefit was sought.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 5The Court specifically followed the order passed in WPS No. 11009 of 2025, ruling that identical facts warrant an identical dismissal.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 6No relief or arrears were granted.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Gaind Lal Kosre & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026:CGHC:9268]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in