Panchayat Cadre Teachers Not Entitled to Kramonnati Benefits Applicable Exclusively to Regular Government Servants Prior to Absorptionof

The Appellants were appointed as Shiksha Karmi (Assistant Teachers) under the Panchayat Department between 2008 and 2013

They were later absorbed into the School Education Department of the State Government on 01.07.2018 pursuant to a policy decision dated 30.06.2018

The Appellants filed a writ petition (WPS No. 10783/2025) seeking the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) as per 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

1. Whether the employees appointed under the Panchayat Cadre (Shiksha Karmi) prior to 2018 are entitled to the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 which applies to Government School Teachers.

2. Whether the Appellants can claim parity with the judgment in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding 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 for regular Government servants

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

"Absorption Order" dated 30.06.2018, specifically Clauses 4 and 5, which stipulate that seniority and benefits for absorbed teachers shall be calculated from 01.07.2018 and no arrears for the preceding period shall be payable

The Court observed that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 applies strictly to Assistant Teachers who are regular Government servants.

Since the Appellants were employees of the Panchayat Department until their absorption in 2018, they were governed by Panchayat-specific service rules rather than State Government rules during the period for which they claimed the benefit.

The Court distinguished the Sona Sahu case, noting it was decided on "peculiar facts" involving a teacher appointed in 2005 who had been granted the benefit and then had it withdrawn, whereas the Appellants' service under the Panchayat Department could not be treated as equivalent to service under the School Education Department for the purpose of the 2017 Circular.

The Court emphasized that parity requires claimants to be similarly situated; here, the Appellants' entry into the Government cadre only occurred in 2018 with a specific restriction on past financial claims.

The Court affirmed that there was no perversity in the Single Judge’s order, as Panchayat cadre employees cannot claim parity with State Department employees regarding time-bound pay scales for the period prior to their absorption. The delay of 84 days in filing the appeal was condoned.