Non-government teachers absorbed into state service cannot claim retrospective financial benefits or parity with government cadre.

Eleven appellants, currently serving as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools, were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III/II under the Panchayat Department between 2008 and 2013

Their services were later absorbed into the School Education Department as Assistant Teachers (L.B.) effective 01.07.2018, pursuant to a State policy dated 30.06.2018

The appellants sought the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) under the Circular dated 10.03.2017, claiming parity with a previous decision in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (WA No. 261/2023).

A Single Judge dismissed their writ petition (WPS No. 11009/2025) on 24.11.2025

1. Whether the appellants, as erstwhile employees of the Panchayat Department absorbed in 2018, are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 for services rendered prior to their absorption

2. Whether the appellants can claim parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu regarding the grant of time-bound pay scales

State Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, which provides for first and second Kramonnati Vetanman after 10 and 20 years of service respectively, specifically for regular Government employees

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

Clauses 4 and 5 of the absorption order dated 30.06.2018 were applied, which stipulate that all benefits and seniority shall be calculated from 01.07.2018 and no arrears shall be payable for the period prior to absorption

Precedents including State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) regarding parity and Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra (2025)

The Court reasoned that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 applies only to Government servants under the School Education Department and not to the Panchayat cadre (Shiksha Karmi)

Until their absorption on 01.07.2018, the appellants were not Government servants; thus, they did not meet the criteria of the 2017 Circular at the time of its issuance

The Court distinguished the Smt. Sona Sahu case, noting it was decided based on its "peculiar facts" where the authority had already granted benefits and then attempted a suo motu cancellation

The Court emphasized that the absorption policy of 2018 explicitly restricted financial benefits or arrears prior to 01.07.2018, thereby legally barring the appellants' claims for retrospective pay scale upgrades based on their Panchayat service

The Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order and, following the precedent set in Writ Appeal No. 191/2026, dismissed the appeal

The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01) was allowed