Panchayat Cadre employees are ineligible for Kramonnati Vetanman benefits reserved for regular State Government servants.

The appellants were originally appointed as Shiksha Karmi (Grade II and III) under the Panchayat Department between 2008 and 2013

Following a state policy dated 30.06.2018, their services were absorbed into the School Education Department as Teachers (L.B.)

The appellants filed a writ petition (WPS No. 10164/2025) seeking the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) based on a Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, claiming parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (WA No. 261/2023)

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 24.11.2025

The present writ appeal was filed with a 79-day delay, which the Court condoned

1. Whether employees of the Panchayat Department (Shiksha Karmi) are entitled to the benefits of the Circular dated 10.03.2017 regarding Kramonnati Vetanman prior to their absorption into the School Education Department.

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to parity with the judgment in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The Court applied the State Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, which regulates the grant of first and second Kramonnati Vetanman after 10 and 20 years of service respectively, specifically for regular Government servants under the School Education Department

It relied on the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 and the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which establish that Panchayat cadre employees are distinct from State Government employees

The Court further applied the doctrine of "peculiar facts," noting that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in Smt. Sona Sahu was based on specific individual circumstances and did not create a general precedent for all absorbed teachers

The Court reasoned that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 applies strictly to regular Government employees and not to the Panchayat cadre

Since the appellants were employees of the Panchayat Department until their absorption on 01.07.2018, they were governed by Panchayat-specific service rules, not the rules applicable to State Government servants

The Court highlighted that the absorption order dated 30.06.2018 explicitly restricted the grant of any arrears or retrospective benefits for the period prior to 01.07.2018

The Court distinguished the Sona Sahu case, noting she was appointed in 2005 under different circulars, whereas the appellants were appointed later (2008-2013) and had not completed the requisite 10 years of service at the time the 2017 Circular was issued

The Court found no perversity in the Single Judge's reliance on precedents such as Jagjit Singh and Rohan Vijay Nahar regarding the distinction between different service cadres

The Court affirmed that the issue was squarely covered by its previous decisions in Writ Appeal No. 191/2026 and Writ Appeal No. 193/2026. The delay in filing was condoned, but the merits of the appeal were rejected, and the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld