Facts
The petitioners, working in various capacities such as Lecturers (L.B.), Teachers (L.B.), and Head Masters under the School Education Department in District Dhamtari, filed a bunch of writ petitions challenging the rejection of their claims for the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman (career advancement pay scale).
Source reference: p.8, para 2The claims were based on a State Government circular dated 10/03/2017.
Source reference: p.8, para 2The High Court of Chhattisgarh heard these seven connected matters (WPS Nos. 4773, 4852, 4851, 4844, 4843, 4827, and 4795 of 2026) simultaneously as they involved common questions of law and facts.
Source reference: p.8, para 1Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the State Government circular dated 10/03/2017.
Source reference: p.8, para 22. Whether the petitioners are similarly situated to those individuals who were granted relief in previous litigations regarding the same circular.
Source reference: p.9-10, para 3Law Applied
The Court relied on the principles of stare decisis and parity in service law.
Source reference: no citationSpecifically applied the precedent set in Smt. Abha Namdeo & Anr v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WA No. 362/2026).
Source reference: p.8, para 3Precedents establish that a claim under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 is only sustainable if the petitioners can demonstrate they are "similarly situated" to the successful petitioner in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WA No. 261/2023).
Source reference: p.10, para 3Reasoning
The Court noted that the issue at hand had already been adjudicated by the Division Bench in several intra-court appeals. Specifically, in Pushpalata Manikpuri, the Court found no reason to interfere with Single Judge orders dismissing similar claims because the appellants failed to demonstrate they were factual analogues to the successful parties in previous cases like Sona Sahu.
Source reference: p.10, para 3Applying this logic to the present petitions, the Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra and followed the recent judgment in Abha Namdeo.
Source reference: p.8-10, para 3-4Consequently, because the petitioners' claims remained "misconceived" and lacked the necessary factual bridge to the cited favorable precedents, the legal basis for the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman was not established.
Source reference: p.10, para 3Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the writ petitions were devoid of merit.
Following the precedent in WA No. 362/2026, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions in the bunch.
Source reference: p.10, para 4Original Court PDF
SMT. YASHODA SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in