Employees absorbed from Panchayat to Education Department are ineligible for Kramonnati Vetanman under the 2017 Circular.

The 39 petitioners were initially appointed as teachers (Shikshakarmis/Assistant Teachers) by the Janpad Panchayat under the Panchayat Department.

Following a State Government policy decision dated June 30, 2018, they were absorbed into the School Education Department.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them "Kramonnati Vetanman" (upgraded pay scale) upon the 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’ service conditions were governed by separate Panchayat Raj rules prior to their 2018 absorption.

1. Whether the petitioners, originally appointed under the Panchayat Department and later absorbed into the Education Department, are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the circular dated March 10, 2017.

2. Whether the precedent in Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh applies to employees whose initial service was under the Panchayat Department.

The Court primarily applied the eligibility criteria outlined in the State Government's Circular dated March 10, 2017, regarding pay scale upgradation for regular Departmental teachers.

The legal distinction established by the Coordinate Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS No. 11009 of 2025, which held that Shikshakarmis governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, do not qualify as "teachers of the School Education Department" for the purpose of retrospective Kramonnati benefits.

The Court noted that the petitioners did not dispute their initial appointment by the Janpad Panchayat rather than the School Education Department.

Applying the reasoning from the lead case WPS No. 11009 of 2025, the Court observed that until their absorption on June 30, 2018, the petitioners were governed by separate rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, despite their designations as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) or Lecturer (Panchayat).

Consequently, the Court found that they failed to meet the specific departmental criteria laid down in the March 10, 2017 circular required for the relief sought.

The Court concluded that the facts of the present case were identical to the dismissed batch of petitions in WPS No. 11009 of 2025.

The Court dismissed the writ petition in terms of the order passed in WPS No. 11009 of 2025 decided on November 24, 2025.