Panchayat Cadre Employees are Not Entitled to Kramonnati Benefits Applicable to Regular State Government Teachers

The appellants were originally appointed as Shiksha Karmi (Grade II and III) under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department between 1998 and 2008

Their services were subsequently absorbed into the School Education Department of the State of Chhattisgarh pursuant to a policy decision dated 30.06.2018

The appellants filed a writ petition seeking the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) as per a Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, which provides for pay upgrades upon completing 10 and 20 years of service

The learned Single Judge dismissed their petition (WPS No. 4184/2025) on 24.11.2025

1. Whether the teachers originally appointed under the Panchayat Cadre (Shiksha Karmi) are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 for the period served prior to their absorption into the State Government service

State Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, which mandates the grant of first and second time-bound pay scales to Assistant Teachers in Government service after 10 and 20 years, respectively

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

Restrictive clauses of the Absorption Order dated 30.06.2018, which stipulate that seniority and financial benefits for absorbed teachers shall only be calculated from the date of absorption (01.07.2018) and no arrears for the prior period shall be payable

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

Until their absorption on 01.07.2018, the appellants were employees of the Panchayat Department and not "Government Servants"

The Court noted that the terms of the absorption policy specifically barred any claims for financial benefits or arrears for the period prior to 01.07.2018

Distinguishing the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (WA No. 261/2023), the Court observed that her relief was granted under "peculiar facts" where the authorities had already granted the benefit and then Suo Motu cancelled it, whereas, in the present case, the appellants never met the criteria for the benefit under the 2017 Circular as they had not completed 10 years of Government service at the time of its issuance

The court concluded that there is a material factual distinction between State employees and Panchayat employees that precludes the claim of parity

The Court found no perversity or infirmity in the Single Judge’s order. Consequently, the Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 193/2026 was followed as the issues were identical