Absorbed Panchayat Teachers Ineligible for Kramonnati Pay Scale Under School Education Department Circulars

The twenty petitioners, originally appointed as Shikshakarmis (Assistant Teachers, Teachers, and Head Masters) by Janpad Panchayats under the Panchayat Department, were subsequently absorbed into the State School Education Department pursuant to a policy decision dated 30.06.2018.

The petitioners filed an application for a writ of mandamus seeking the implementation of the 2017 Kramonnati (Time-bound Promotion) Order and the departmental order dated 06.04.2019.

They claimed entitlement to an upgraded pay scale (Kramonnati Vetanman) and arrears upon completion of 10 or 20 years of service, relying on the precedent set in Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The State contested the claim, arguing that the petitioners were not regular employees of the Education Department at the time of their initial service.

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

The Court primarily applied the eligibility criteria stipulated in the State Government’s Circular dated 10.03.2017 regarding the grant of Kramonnati.

It distinguished the precedent of Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (W.A. No. 261 of 2023) and strictly adhered to the principle established in the Coordinate Bench decision of Section 35 of WPS No. 11009 of 2025, which held that employees governed by separate rules under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, do not qualify as "teachers of the School Education Department" for the purpose of the 2017 circular until their formal date of absorption.

The Court analyzed the service history of the petitioners and noted that until their absorption on 30.06.2018, they were classified as shikshakarmis governed by Panchayat Raj rules, regardless of their designations as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) or Teacher (Panchayat).

The Court reasoned that because the petitioners were not employees of the School Education Department during the period for which they claimed seniority for Kramonnati, they failed to meet the mandatory criteria laid down in the circular dated 10.03.2017.

By applying the "identical facts" doctrine, the Court found that the petitioners' situation was exactly the same as those in the lead case of WPS No. 11009 of 2025, where it was determined that service rendered under the Panchayat Department cannot be counted toward Kramonnati benefits in the Education Department.

Following the precedent of the Coordinate Bench in WPS No. 11009 of 2025 (decided on 24.11.2025), the High Court dismissed the writ petition.