Panchayat-cadre Shiksha Karmis cannot claim Kramonnati under the 2017 circular for pre-absorption service.

The appellant, an Assistant Teacher (L.B.), challenged the order dated 28 November 2025 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, following the decision in Smt. Abha Namdeo & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others.

The dispute concerned her claim for Kramonnati Vetanman/time-bound pay-scale benefit under the State Government Circular dated 10 March 2017, based on completion of ten years of service and parity with the Division Bench decision in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The State contended that the issue was covered against the appellant by the subsequent coordinate-Bench decisions in Pushpalata Manikpuri and Jeewan Lal Banjare, and that the Circular applied to regular State Government employees, not former Shiksha Karmi/Panchayat-cadre employees.

The Court condoned the delay of 223 days in filing the appeal and proceeded to consider the matter at the admission stage.

Whether former Shiksha Karmi/Assistant Teachers appointed under the Panchayat Department and subsequently absorbed into the School Education Department are entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman or time-bound pay-scale benefits under the Circular dated 10 March 2017?

Whether the appellant could claim parity with the relief granted to Smt. Sona Sahu in WA No. 261 of 2023?

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition by following the decision in Smt. Abha Namdeo?

The Court applied the Circular dated 10 March 2017, which grants first Kramonnati Vetanman after ten years and second Kramonnati Vetanman after twenty years to eligible Assistant Teachers and time-bound pay scales to teachers and lecturers in Government service.

The Court held that the Circular applies to regular State Government employees and does not extend to employees of the Panchayat cadre, including Shiksha Karmi, whose service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules, 2007, the subsequent 2012 Rules, and rules framed under Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The absorption policy dated 30 June 2018 did not create entitlement to arrears or benefits for the period preceding 1 July 2018, as reflected in Clauses 4 and 5 of that policy.

The Court relied on Pushpalata Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh and Jeewan Lal Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh, and distinguished Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh as a decision rendered on its peculiar facts, which did not establish a general entitlement for all Panchayat-cadre employees.

The Court found that the appeal raised the same issue already decided against similarly situated employees in Pushpalata Manikpuri.

It accepted the distinction between regular State Government teachers covered by the Circular dated 10 March 2017 and Shiksha Karmi appointed and governed initially under the Panchayat Department’s statutory framework.

Subsequent absorption into the School Education Department in 2018 did not retrospectively convert the earlier Panchayat service into State Government service for the purpose of claiming pre-absorption Kramonnati benefits, particularly in view of the express restrictions in the absorption policy.

The Court further held that Sona Sahu was fact-specific: the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State’s SLP was based on the peculiar facts of that case and did not confer an automatic parity-based entitlement on the appellant.

Since the appellant did not dispute that her case was identical to the cases decided in WAs Nos. 191 and 193 of 2026, and no perversity or legal infirmity was shown in the Single Judge’s order, appellate interference was unwarranted.

It held that former Panchayat-cadre Shiksha Karmi/teachers absorbed into the School Education Department could not claim Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10 March 2017 by treating their pre-absorption service as State Government service, nor could they claim parity with Sona Sahu.

The delay of 223 days was condoned; however, the writ appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, in the same terms as Pushpalata Manikpuri, with no interference in the Single Judge’s order.