Netram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15942-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA Date:2026.04.09 13:05:01 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WA No. 277 of 2026

¶7

1 - Netram Sahu S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, (L.B.) At Government Higher Secondary School Sarai Tarkela, Block - Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Commissioner Cum Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

5 - District Education Officer District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶15

6 - Block Education Officer Block - Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

7 - Jila Panchayat Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

2

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/04/2026

¶22

1 Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 33 days in preferring the present appeal.

¶23

2 On due consideration the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 33 days in preferring the present writ appeal is hereby condoned.

¶24

3 The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.11793/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by petitioners was dismissed.

¶25

4 Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2026 in Writ Appeal No.193/2026, whereby this Court has held as under:-

¶26

3

¶27

“1 7. The entire controversy revolved around the Circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the State Government with respect to the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to the Assistant Teachers. It is necessary to notice here the circular dated 10.03.2017, which reads as under:

¶28

छत्ती�सगढ़शा�सन स�मा�न्यप्रशा�सनवि�भा�ग मा�त्रा�लय

¶29

माहा�नदी�भा�न, नय�रा�यपु�रा क्रमा��कएफ 10-1/2008/1-3 नय�रा�यपु�रादिदीन��क 10/03/2017 प्रवि�,

¶30

शा�सनक समास्�वि�भा�ग,

¶31

अध्यक्ष,

¶32

छत्ती�सगढ़रा�जस्�माण्डल, वि(ल�सपु�रा

¶33

समास्�वि�भा�ग�ध्यक्ष,

समास्�स�भा�ग�य�क्�

समास्�कल क्टस+,

छत्ती�सगढ़

वि�षय :- सहा�यकशिशाक्षक. क/ कमा/न्नवि�� नमा�नप्रदी�यविकएज�न (�(�1। :- इस क� स�दीभा+ वि�भा�ग समास�ख्यक पुरिरापुत्रा दिदीन��क 24.04.2006.

¶38

-00-

¶39

इसवि�भा�गक स�दीर् भ ि7�पुरिरापुत्राद्वा�रा�शिशाक्षकस � ग+ मा9 सहा�यक शिशाक्षक, शिशाक्षक�था�व्या�ख्य��क/ स�मा�न्यप्रशा�सनवि�भा�गक एफ पुरिरापुत्रा कमा��क 1-1/1/� आप्र/99, दिदीन��क 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 मा9 विनविहा�शा�= क अध्यधी�नप्रथान कमा/न्नवि� 12 �ष+ (�दी�था�विद्वा��यक्रमा/न्नवि� 24 �ष+ (�दीप्रदी�न विकय� गय� हा?। वि�त्ती वि�भा�ग क ज्ञा�पुन कमा��क 216/स�2802/10/वि�त्ती/विनयमा/धी�रा, दिदीन��क 04.08.2010 (वि�त्तीविनदीAशा 32/2010) द्वा�रा�क्रमा/न्नवि�य/जन�क/ स�शा/धिधी�कराशिशाक्षक�था� व्या�ख्य��स � ग+ क/ प्रथामाउच्च�रासमायमा�न� �नमा�न 10 �ष+ (�दीए��विद्वा��यउच्च�रासमायमा�न� �नमा�न 20 �ष+ (�दीदी न क� विनर्ण+यशिलय�गय�हा?।

¶40

2/अ�ए�उपुरा/क्�विनर्ण+यक पुरिराप्र क्ष्यमा9 रा�ज्यशा�सनद्वा�रा�विनर्ण+य शिलय�गय�हा? विकइसवि�भा�गक स�दीर् भ ि7�पुरिरापुत्रादिदीन��क 24.04.2006 कH क�विडक�-2 मा9 "सहा�यकशिशाक्षक" क/ प्रथामा कमा/न्नवि� 10 �ष+ (�दीए��विद्वा��यक्रमा/न्नवि� 20 �ष+ (�दीप्रदी�नकH ज�ए।

¶41

3/उपुरा/क्�विनर्ण+यक स�(�धीमा9 यहास्पष्टविकय�ज��हा? विक कमा/न्नवि�कH दी य��वि�शिथाक अन�स�राक �लक�ल्पुविनक� �न विनधी�+रार्णविकय�ज�एग�ए��विकस�प्रक�राक एरिरायस+ दी यनहाL हा.ग ।

¶42

4

¶43

4/यहाआदी शावि�त्तीवि�भा�गक कम्प्यNटराकमा��कएफ-2017-0101093 दिदीन��क 09.02.2017 द्वा�रा�दी�गईसहामावि�क आधी�रापुरा ज�रा�विकय�गय�हा?।

¶44

छत्ती�सगढ़क रा�ज्यपु�लक न�मास �था�आदी शा�न�स�रा, (एमा.आरा.ठो/कN रा) अ�रासशिQ�, छत्ती�सगढ़शा�सन स�मा�न्यप्रशा�सनवि�भा�ग

¶45

18 . From perusal of the contents of the circular dated 10.03.2017, it is quite vivid that the Assistant Teachers, who were in Government service, are to be granted first Kramonnati Vetanman after 10 years of their service and second Kromonnati Vetanman after 20 years of their service, and the teachers and lecturers are to be granted first timebound pay scale after 10 years of service and second time-bound pay scale after 20 years of service.

¶46

19. From pleadings made in Para-8.8 of the writ petition, undisputedly the petitioners have been appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III/Grade-II between the period of 1998 and 2008. It is also relevant to notice here paragraph 8.8 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:

¶47

“8.8 Between 1998-2008, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat appointed the Petitioners in the post of Assistant Teacher Shikshakarmi Grade3/Teacher- Shikshakarmi Grade 2. After completion of 2 years from the date of joining, the Petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Teachers were regularised by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and Teachers were regularised by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat.”

¶48

5

¶49

20. When the petitioners in the present writ petition were appointed between 2008 and 2013, they had not completed 10 years of their service on the date when the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was issued.

¶50

21. From a bare perusal of the Circular dated 10.03.2017, it is abundantly clear that the said circular does not deal with or extend benefits to the Teachers belonging to the Panchayat Cadre, including Shiksha Karmi. The circular specifically provides for the grant of first-time-bound pay scale and second-time-bound pay scale to regular Government employees, in accordance with the earlier circulars issued by the State Government dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999.

¶51

22. In the present case, the petitioners were working as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department, and the Shiksha Karmi were not the employees of the State Government until their absorption into the School Education Department pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government dated 30.06.2018. Before such absorption, their appointment, service conditions, and other benefits were governed by the statutory framework applicable to Panchayat employees, and not by the rules or circulars applicable to State Government employees.

¶52

23. Therefore, since the petitioners were admittedly the employees of the Panchayat Department before the absorption policy came into force, they cannot claim the status of a Government Servant for the purpose of seeking the benefit of time-bound pay scale or Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017.

¶53

6

¶54

Their service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, the Rules of 2012, or any other rules framed under Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which regulate the service conditions of Panchayat employees.

¶55

24. Thus, in view of the clear distinction between State Government employees and Panchayat cadre employees, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the Circular dated 10.03.2017 or the earlier circulars dated 17.03.1999/19.04.1999, as those circulars apply solely to Government servants of the State, and not to employees appointed under the Panchayat department.

¶56

25. The distinguishable feature of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) are that she was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 29.07.2005 and was posted at Government Primary School, Narayanpur. On 01.07.2011, the State Government, Department of Finance and Planning issued a Circular regarding Kramonnati Vetanman to the employees. The Department of Panchayat and Rural Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, also issued a Circular dated 02.11.2011 regarding Kramonnati Vetanman after completion of 10 years of service. On 17.05.2013, the department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued another circular with respect to the equalisation of pay scale between Government Teachers and Teacher Panchayat after completion of 08 years of their services. Further, vide circular

¶57

7

¶58

dated 14.11.2014, the earlier circular dated 02.11.2011 was cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013. The petitioner was granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman vide order dated 15.01.2020, but the said order was cancelled vide order dated 29.02.2020 on the ground that the Circular dated 02.11.2011 has already been cancelled with effect from 01.05.2013 vide order dated 14.11.2014, and since the petitioner, who has not completed 10 years of her service in the cadre, was not entitled to Kramonnati Vetanman. While passing the order dated 15.01.2020, the authorities had considered the circulars dated 07.03.2019, 06.04.2019, and granted Kramonnati Vetanman to Sona Sahu with effect from 01.08.2015 and thereafter the concerned authority sou motu re-considered the order dated 15.01.2020 and passed the order on 29.02.2020, by which the benefit granted to Smt. Sona Sahu was cancelled. While considering the matter, the concerned authority had not consider the circular dated 10.03.2017 and 07.03.2019. In the peculiar facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) was granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman, vide order dated 28.02.2024, passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023. The challenge of the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023, and Review Petition No. 147/2024 is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2025, passed in SLP (C) Diary No. 58525/2024, by observing that in the peculiar facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu, no interference is called for, and

¶59

8

¶60

accordingly, the SLP(C) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶61

26. In the present case, the petitioners are appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi by the Panchayat Department. They were not government employees till 2018, when their services were absorbed by the school education department. Therefore, they cannot claim parity and benefit at par as has been granted to Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023).

¶62

27. Further, Clauses 4 and 5 of the absorption order dated 30.06.2018 clearly restrict the grant of any benefit to the employees of the Panchayat Department whose services have been absorbed with the school education department for the benefit of arrears prior to 01.07.2018. Clause 4 and 5 of the absorption order dated reads as under:

¶63

“4/ शि�क्षक (एल.बी�.) सं�वर्ग�क�दे�यसंमस्तल�भक� लिलय�सं�व�क�र्गणना�सं�विवलिलयनादिदेना��क 01 जु�ल�ई 2018 सं�क�जु�य�र्ग�। 5/ दिदेना��क 01 जु�ल�ई 2018 क�पू#व�क�अवलि% क�लिलय� विकसं�भ�प्रक�रक�एरिरयसं�क�पू�त्रत�नाहीं+ हीं�र्ग�।" 28. On 06.04.2019, the State Government School Education Department issued another Circular with respect to the further proceedings under the Rules of 2019, in which it has been provided that:

¶64

"इसंविवभ�र्गद्वा�र�जु�र�सं�विवलिलयनाविनादे.�कम��कएक दिदेना��क 30.06.2018 क�क�वि/क� 5 म0 स्पष्ट उल्ल�खि6त हीं7, विकदिदेना��क 01.07.2018 क�पू#व�क�अवलि% क�लिलए विकसं�भ�प्रक�रक� एरिरयसं�क�पू�त्रत�नाहीं�हीं�र्ग� अर्था��तपू#व�क�एरिरयसं�स्क# लशि�क्ष�विवभ�र्गद्वा�र�दे�य नाहीं+ हीं9र्ग�।पू#व�म0 शि�क्षक (पू�चा�यत/नार्गर�यविनाक�य)

¶65

9

¶66

सं�वर्ग�क� कम�चा�र�, जु�वत�म�नाम0 शि�क्षकएल.बी�. सं�वर्ग�क�रूपूम0 क�य�रतहीं<, क�सं�विवलिलयनापू#व�क� अवलि% क� ल�विबीतस्वत्व9 क�भ�र्गत�नापू�त्रत�ना�सं�र सं�बी�लि%तविवभ�र्गद्वा�र�हीं�विकय�जु�य�र्ग�।"

¶67

29. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners seeking the benefit of Kramonnati under the Circular dated 10.03.2017, claiming parity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023). The petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat Department between 1998 and 2008, and their services were regularized by the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the respective Janpad and Zila Panchayats. They continued to serve under the Panchayat department till 2018, when they were absorbed into the School Education Department pursuant to the State Government policy dated 30.06.2018. Their service prior to absorption was governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules, 2007, and subsequent rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

¶68

30. The Circular dated 10.03.2017, on which the petitioners rely, specifically applies to Assistant Teachers under the School Education Department who have completed 10 years of service. In contrast, the petitioners’ service as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat department cannot be treated as equivalent to service under the School Education Department. The factual distinction is material, and the principles of parity require that employees claiming equal treatment must be

¶69

10

¶70

similarly situated in all material aspects, which is not the case here.

¶71

31. This has consistently held in WP(S) No. 208/2012, WP(S) No. 2530/2017, WP(S) No. 10335/2019, WP(S) No. 1021/2021, and WP(S) No. 3369/2021 that the services of the Shiksha Karmi governed by Panchayat rules are not entitled to pay scales or other benefits applicable to teachers of the School Education Department. The learned Single Judge rightly distinguished the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023), after independently examining the entitlement of the petitioners, concluded that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 does not apply to their service.

¶72

32. The learned Single Judge after adverting and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, elaborately considered various judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohan Vijay Nahar and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others 2025 INSC 1296, State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, 2017 (1) SCC 148 , Khoday Distiliaries Limited (Now known as Khoday India Limited) and Others vs. Shree Mahadeshwara Shahkara Sakkare Karkhane Limited Kollegal 2019 (4) SCC 376 and Ravi Prakash Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh order dated 08-09-2025 passed learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 10335/2019, decided the writ petition filed by the writ appellants/petitioners in which, we do not find perversity or infirmity. The consideration of the learned Single Judge in the

¶73

11

¶74

impugned order is well merited based on a proper appreciation of the facts and law applicable to the case.

¶75

33. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order.”

¶76

They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.193/2026 , this appeal may also dismissed in the same terms.

¶77

5 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No.193/2026 , this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.193/2026 .

¶78

6 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.193/2026 .

¶79

Sd/- Sd/- ff Sd/-

¶80

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶81

Alok

Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudev Vs Darasram

Vishnukant Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhjeet Lal @ Vikku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Singh Thakur Vs Ghasiram

Munna Ram Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aakash Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh