Grant of Kramonnati Vetanman Under Circular Dated 10.03.2017 Denied Where Petitioners Fail to Establish Parity.

A group of petitioners, working as Teachers (L.B.) and Assistant Teachers (L.B.) in various government schools in District Dhamtari, filed a series of writ petitions challenging the rejection of their claims for the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (career progression pay scale).

The petitioners sought these benefits based on a State Government circular dated 10/03/2017.

The respondent State contended that the issue was already adjudicated by previous Division Bench judgments of the same High Court.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the circular dated 10/03/2017.

2. Whether the petitioners are similarly situated to the beneficiaries in previous litigations, specifically Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The Court relied on the principle of stare decisis and judicial discipline, specifically applying the precedents set in Pushpalata Manikpuri and others v. State of Chhattisgarh (WA No. 193/2026) and Smt. Abha Namdeo Anr v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WA No. 362/2026).

These precedents established that claims for Kramonnati under the circular dated 10/03/2017 cannot be sustained if the petitioners fail to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the successful litigants in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (WA No. 261/2023).

The Court noted that the legal questions and factual circumstances involved in this bunch of writ petitions had already been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in Smt. Abha Namdeo.

The Court observed that in the foundational case of Pushpalata Manikpuri, the High Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s dismissal of similar claims because the appellants therein had failed to prove they were "similarly situated" to those in the Sona Sahu case.

Consequently, the Court found the petitioners' claims in the present instance to be "misconceived" as they were governed by the same restrictive interpretation of the 2017 Circular as settled in the cited Writ Appeals.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. No costs were awarded.