Teachers absorbed from Panchayat cadres are ineligible for Kramonnati Vetanman benefits applicable to regular Education Department employees.

The petitioners were initially appointed as teachers by the Janpad Panchayat under the Panchayat Department.

They were subsequently absorbed into the School Education Department of the State of Chhattisgarh pursuant to a policy decision dated June 30, 2018.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to grant them the benefits of the 1st and 2nd Kramonnati Vetanaman (time-bound pay scale) upon completion of 10 and 20 years of service respectively.

They predicated their claim on a government circular dated March 10, 2017, and the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (W.A. No. 261/2023).

Whether employees originally appointed by the Panchayat Department (Shikshakarmis) and later absorbed into the Education Department are eligible for Kramonnati benefits under the circular dated 10.03.2017.

The court primarily applied the State Government Circular dated 10.03.2017, which governs the eligibility for Kramonnati benefits.

It further relied on the legal distinction between employees governed by the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and regular teachers of the School Education Department, as established in the precedent WPS No. 11009 of 2025.

The Court observed that the petitioners, prior to their absorption in 2018, were "Shikshakarmis" (Assistant Teachers/Panchayat) and were not cadre employees of the School Education Department.

The Court applied the reasoning from a Coordinate Bench decision in WPS No. 11009 of 2025, which held that since such employees were governed by separate rules under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, they did not fulfill the specific criteria laid down in the circular dated 10.03.2017.

Because the petitioners' initial appointment was through the Janpad Panchayat rather than a regular appointment by the School Education Department, the Court found their situation identical to the batch of cases dismissed on 24.11.2025.

Consequently, the Court determined that the reliance on the Sona Sahu case was misplaced given the specific service history of these petitioners.

It held that the petitioners are not entitled to Kramonnati benefits as they did not meet the criteria of the March 10, 2017 circular, following the binding precedent in WPS No. 11009 of 2025.

No relief or consequential benefits were granted.