Meena Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Meena Sahu W/o Raghuwar Sahu, Aged About 53 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Khora, Block - Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

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

¶13

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

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

¶15

4 - Chief Execitive Officer Zila Panchayat Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶16

5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Zila Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶17

6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶18

2 / 13

¶19

7 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶20

8 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶21

9 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker

¶22

10 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶23

11 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mohla, District Mohla-ManpurAmbagarh Chowki (C.G.)

¶24

12 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mohla, District Mohla-ManpurAmbagarh Chowki (C.G.)

¶25

13 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶26

14 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

¶27

15 - Chetanand Khuntia S/o Kumarmani Khuntia Aged About 43 Years Posted And Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. H.S. School Gharjiyabathan, Block - Pathalgaon, District – Jashpur

¶28

16 - Vinita James W/o Late Jai Raj James Aged About 61 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Parikala, Block - Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶29

17 - Smt. Chandrawati Yadav W/o Ashish Kumar Yadav, Aged About 39 Years Posted And Working As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Dhara, Block - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶30

3 / 13

¶31

18 - Dhaneshwari Kodape D/o Lakhan Lal Ghawade Aged About 45 Years Posted And Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Dumartola, Block - Mohla, District - Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.)

¶32

19 - Kamal Singh Kanwar S/o Pawan Singh Kanwar, Aged About 40 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Sirbida, Block - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.)

¶33

	... Respondents
For Appellant	: Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General
	Division Bench

¶34

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge & Hon’ble Smt Sushma Sawant, Judge

¶35

Order on Board

¶36

15.09.2026

¶37

Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶38

1. Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue which is raised in this appeal has already been considered and decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in writ appeals bearing WA No. 191 of 2026 and WA No. 193 of 2026. He submits that there is inordinate delay of 223 days in filing of this writ appeal and no acceptable explanation has been offered.

¶39

1. Heard IA No. 01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of this writ appeal.

¶40

1. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties as also the reasons assigned in the application, IA No. 01/2026 is allowed. Delay of 223 days in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned.

¶41

4 / 13

¶42

1. Also heard on admission.

¶43

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Singh Judge in a writ petition bearing WPS No. 13393 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (herein) came to be dismissed in the terms of the order dated 24.11.2025 passed in WPS No. 11009 of 2025 between Smt. Abha Namdeo And Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶44

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. He submits that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition have failed to take into consideration the decision of Division Bench in case of Smt. Sona Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 28.05.2024 in a writ appeal bearing WA No. 261 of 2023.

¶45

1. He further submits that in above referred case, Co-ordinate bench of this Court in case of Smt. Sona Sahu (supra) has observed that the circular dated 10.03.2017 is still operative and teachers who have completed ten years of service without promotion is entitled for Kramonnati Vetanmaan / Time pay scale, irrespective of initial appointing authority. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in case of Smt. Abha Namdeo and Others (supra) with respect to the Shiksha Karmi to be governed by the separate rules is wholly erroneous and contrary to the policy dated 30.06.2018.

¶46

1. He also submits that the circular dated 10.03.2017 nowhere restrict the benefit only to “regular teachers of School Education Department”. Para 2 of the circular uses the word “teachers” in the widest sense and the benefit was extended precisely to remove stagnation of Panchayat

¶47

5 / 13

¶48

teachers who had no promotional avenue. The Sona Sahu judgment has categorically held that the circular applies to such teachers.

¶49

Learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered similar arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant (therein), the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the order passed in writ appeal bearing WA No. 261 of 2023 dated 23.07.2024, the order passed in review petition and further the order dismissing the SLP(c) by Hon’ble Supreme Court and have dismissed the appeal in case of Pushpalata Manikpuri and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and in case of Jeewan Lal Banjare and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others . He also submits that the issue raised in the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge in case of Smt. Abha Namdeo (supra) and was decided on 24.11.2025 observing that petitioners (therein) were working as Siksha Karmi in schools under the control of Panchayat and their services were governed by separate rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Adiniyam, 1993. Their designation were also different i.e. they were Assistant Teachers (Panchayat)/teachers (Panchayat).

¶50

1. When the question is posed to learned counsel for the appellant that as to whether the issue raised in this appeal is identical to that of considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal no. 193 of 2026 and Writ Appeal No. 191 of 2026, he submits that he is not disputing the submission in this regard as advanced by learned counsel for the State.

¶51

6 / 13

¶52

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the State in that

¶53

appeal are as under:-

¶54

The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the State Government against the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023 and Review Petition No. 147/2024, under the peculiar facts of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu. Consequently, this Court is competent to independently examine the entitlement of the petitioners to Kramonnati Vetanman under the Circular dated 10.03.2017.

¶55

The Circular dated 10.03.2017 specifically applies to teachers of the School Education Department or State Government employees, and not to Panchayat employees, including Shiksha Karmi. Therefore, reliance placed by the petitioners on the Circular dated 10.03.2017 is misconceived. It is further submitted that under settled principles of service jurisprudence, any person claiming parity must establish that they are similarly situated in all material aspects. Since the petitioners have failed to demonstrate such similarity with the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023), they are not entitled to the relief sought, and therefore, the writ petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, and there is no merit in the writ appeal, and the same is also liable to be dismissed.

¶56

1. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record of the writ appeal and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jeewan lal Banjare (supra) and Pushpalata Manikpuri (supra) .

¶57

1. Upon considering, entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue raised by learned counsel for appellant, we are of the considered view that this appeal is covered with the decision in case of Pushpalata Manikpuri (supra) decided on 13.03.2026 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in writ appeal bearing WA No. 193 of 2026 which were disposed of in following terms:-

¶58

7 / 13

¶59

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:-

¶60

छत्ती�सगढ़ शा�सन

¶61

स�मा�न्य प्रशा�सन वि�भा�ग मा�त्रा�लय माहा�नदी� भा�न, नय� रा�यप्र

¶62

क्रमा��क एफ 10-1/2008/1-3

¶63

नय� रा�यपु�रा दिदीन��क 10/03/2017

¶64

प्रवि ,

¶65

शा�सन क! समास् वि�भा�ग,

¶66

अध्यक्ष, छत्ती�सगढ़ रा�जस्� माण्डल, वि)ल�सपु�रा

¶67

समास् वि�भा�ग�ध्यक्ष,

समास् स�भा�ग�य�क्

समास् कल!क्टस,

छत्ती�सगढ़

वि�षय :- सहा�यक शिशाक्षक/ क0 कमा0न्नवि �! नमा�न प्रदी�य विकए ज�न! )�) 2।

¶72

स�दीभा, :- इस वि�भा�ग क� समास�ख्यक पुरिरापुत्रा दिदीन��क 24.04.2006.

¶73

इस वि�भा�ग क! स�दीर् भ ि8 पुरिरापुत्रा द्वा�रा� शिशाक्षक स � ग, मा: सहा�यक शिशाक्षक, शिशाक्षक था� व्या�ख्य� � क0 स�मा�न्य प्रशा�सन वि�भा�ग क! पुरिरापुत्रा कमा��क एफ 1-1/1/�!आप्र/99, दिदीन��क 17.03.1999/19.04.1999 मा: विनविहा शा > क! अध्यधी�न प्रथान कमा0न्नवि 12 �ष, )�दी था� विद्वा �य क्रमा0न्नवि 24 �ष, )�दी प्रदी�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�त्ती विनदीBशा 32/2010) द्वा�रा� क्रमा0न्नवि य0जन� क0 स�शा0धिधी करा शिशाक्षक था� व्या�ख्य� � स � ग, क0 प्रथामा उच्च रा समायमा�न �! नमा�न 10 �ष, )�दी ए�� विद्वा �य उच्च रा समायमा�न �! नमा�न 20 �ष, )�दी दी!न! क� विनर्ण,य शिलय� गय� हा@।

¶74

2/अ ए� उपुरा0क् विनर्ण,य क! पुरिराप्र!क्ष्य मा: रा�ज्य शा�सन द्वा�रा� विनर्ण,य शिलय� गय� हा@ विक इस वि�भा�ग क! स�दीर् भ ि8 पुरिरापुत्रा दिदीन��क 24.04.2006 कI क�विडक�-2 मा: "सहा�यक शिशाक्षक" क0 प्रथामा कमा0न्नवि 10 �ष, )�दी ए�� विद्वा �य क्रमा0न्नवि 20 �ष, )�दी प्रदी�न कI ज�ए।

¶75

8 / 13

¶76

3/ उपुरा0क् विनर्ण,य क! स�)�धी मा: यहा स्पष्ट विकय� ज� � हा@ विक कमा0न्नवि कI दी!य � वि शिथा क! अन�स�रा क! �ल क�ल्पुविनक �! न विनधी�,रार्ण विकय� ज�एग� ए�� विकस� प्रक�रा क! एरिरायस, दी!य नहाM हा/ग!।

¶77

4/ यहा आदी!शा वि�त्ती वि�भा�ग क! कम्प्यOटरा कमा��क एफ-2017-01-01093 दिदीन��क 09.02.2017 द्वा�रा� दी� गई सहामावि क! आधी�रा पुरा ज�रा� विकय� गय� हा@।

¶78

छत्ती�सगढ़ क! रा�ज्यपु�ल क! न�मा स!

¶79

था� आदी!शा�न�स�रा, (एमा.आरा. ठो0कO रा) अ�रा सशिR�, छत्ती�सगढ़ शा�सन स�मा�न्य प्रशा�सन वि�भा�ग

¶80

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 time- bound pay scale after 10 years of service and second time-bound pay scale after 20 years of service.

¶81

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:

¶82

"8.8 Between 1998-2008, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat appointed the Petitioners in the post of Assistant Teacher Shikshakarmi Grade- 3/Teacher- Shikshakarmi Grade 2. After completion of 2 years from the date of joining, the Petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Teachers were regularized by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and Teachers were regularised by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat."

¶83

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

¶84

9 / 13

¶85

From a bare perusal of the Circular dated 10.03.2017, it 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 secondtime-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.

¶86

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.

¶87

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. 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.

¶88

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 circular apply solely to Government servants of the State, and not to employees appointed under the Panchayat department.

¶89

The distinguishable feature of the case of Smt. Sona Sahu (Writ Appeal No. 261/2023) are that she was appointed to the

¶90

10 / 13

¶91

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

¶92

11 / 13

¶93

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).

¶94

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:

¶95

“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�।

¶96

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�।"

¶97

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:

¶98

"इसंविवभ�र्गद्वा�र�जु�र�सं�विवलिलयनाविनादे.�कम��कएकदिदेना��क 30.06.2018 क�क�वि/क� 5 म0 स्पष्टउल्ल�खि6त हीं7, विकदिदेना��क 01.07.2018 क�पू#व�क�अवलि% क�लिलएविकसं�भ�प्रक�रक� एरिरयसं�क�पू�त्रत�नाहीं�हीं�र्ग�अर्था��तपू#व�क�एरिरयसं�स्क# लशि�क्ष� विवभ�र्गद्वा�र�दे�यनाहीं+ हीं9र्ग�।पू#व�म0 शि�क्षक (पू�चा�यत/नार्गर�य विनाक�य) 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�विबीत स्वत्व9 क�भ�र्गत�नापू�त्रत�ना�सं�रसं�बी�लि%तविवभ�र्गद्वा�र�हीं�विकय� जु�य�र्ग�।"

¶99

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

¶100

12 / 13

¶101

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.

¶102

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

¶103

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.

¶104

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

¶105

Khoday India Limited) and Others vs. Shree Mahadeshwara Shahkara Sakkare Karkhane Limited Kollegal 2019 (4) SCC 376 and Ravi Prakash Sahu vs.

¶106

13 / 13

¶107

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

¶108

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.

¶109

In view of the above, the writ appellants/petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023 (Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). Their claim under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 is, therefore, misconceived, and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed .”

¶110

1. In the above facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that

¶111

this appeal is squarely covered with the case of Pushpalata (supra) therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed at admission stage in same terms.

¶112

Certified copy as per rules.

¶113

Sd/- Sd/-

¶114

(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Judge Judge

¶115

Alfiza

Meena Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases