Absorbed Panchayat Teachers Are Ineligible for Time-Bound Pay Scales Applicable to Regular Government Employees.

The appellants were originally appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and Grade-III (Panchayat Cadre) between 2008 and 2013 under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993

They served under the Panchayat Department until their services were absorbed into the School Education Department on 01.07.2018 pursuant to a state policy

The appellants filed a writ petition (WPS No. 4073/2025) seeking the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) as per a Government Circular dated 10.03.2017

The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 24.11.2025, leading to this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the employees of the Panchayat Cadre (Shiksha Karmi) are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued for Government Teachers

2. Whether the appellants can claim parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (WA No. 261/2023) despite the specific restrictions mentioned in the absorption order of 2018

State Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, which provides for first and second time-bound pay scales for Assistant Teachers in government service after 10 and 20 years respectively

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, and the 2012 Rules, which distinguish Panchayat employees from State Government servants

"Absorption Order" dated 30.06.2018, specifically Clauses 4 and 5, which stipulate that seniority and benefits for absorbed teachers shall be calculated from 01.07.2018 and no arrears prior to that date shall be payable

Doctrine of parity as interpreted in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) and Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra (2025), requiring claimants to be similarly situated to invoke equal treatment

The Court reasoned that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was intended exclusively for regular Government employees and did not extend to the Panchayat Cadre or Shiksha Karmis

Since the appellants were employees of the Panchayat Department until their absorption in 2018, they were governed by Panchayat-specific service rules rather than State Government rules

The Court distinguished the precedent of Smt. Sona Sahu, noting it was decided on "peculiar facts" where the employee had certain rights prior to the cancellation of specific 2011/2013 circulars, which did not apply to the current appellants who were appointed later

The Court emphasized that under the 2018 absorption policy, the appellants accepted the condition that no past arrears or benefits prior to 01.07.2018 would be granted

Consequently, the service rendered in the Panchayat Department cannot be treated as equivalent to service under the School Education Department for the purpose of the 2017 Circular

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, concluding that there was no perversity in the finding that Panchayat Cadre employees and Government Teachers constitute two distinct classes until the date of formal absorption

The delay of 16 days in filing the appeal was condoned [para 2], but the case was dismissed on merits in terms of the precedent set in Writ Appeal No. 191/2026