Panchayat Department employees absorbed into School Education Department are ineligible for Kramonnati Vetanman under 2017 circular.

The petitioner, a Teacher (L.B.) at Govt. Middle School, Gadadih, was initially appointed under the Panchayat Department by the Janpad Panchayat.

Following a State policy dated 30.06.2018, she was absorbed into the School Education Department.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to quash an order dated 30.09.2025 and to direct the respondents to grant her the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound career progression scale) upon completion of 10 years of service, citing a State circular dated 10.03.2017 and the Division Bench ruling in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The State contested the petition, arguing that the petitioner’s service history as a former Panchayat employee distinguishes her case from Sona Sahu.

1. Whether a teacher initially appointed by the Panchayat Department and later absorbed into the School Education Department is entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman under the circular dated 10.03.2017.

The Court applied the eligibility criteria outlined in the State Government’s Circular dated 10.03.2017 regarding the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman.

It further relied on the judicial precedent established by a Coordinate Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS No. 11009 of 2025 (and batch), which interpreted the status of Shikshakarmis (Panchayat teachers) under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, versus regular employees of the School Education Department.

The Court analyzed whether the petitioner fulfilled the mandatory criteria of the 10.03.2017 circular. It noted that until the absorption policy of 30.06.2018, the petitioner was not a member of the School Education Department but was a Shikshakarmis governed by separate rules under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The Court observed that despite changes in designation to Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) or Teacher (Panchayat), such employees remain distinct from regular departmental teachers.

Applying the ratio from WPS No. 11009 of 2025, the Court found that because the petitioner’s initial service was under the Panchayat Department, she did not meet the specific criteria required for the grant of Kramonnati as envisioned in the 2017 circular.

The Court distinguished this from the Sona Sahu case based on these specific service conditions.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that teachers absorbed from the Panchayat Department do not qualify for Kramonnati Vetanman under the subject circular.