Shiksha Karmis Under Panchayat Rules Not Entitled To School Education Department Pay Scales : Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The appellants were appointed as Shiksha Karmi (Grade-III/II) under the Panchayat Department. Their services were regularized by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayats. They continued to serve under the Panchayat department. Later their services were absorbed into the School Education Department pursuant to a State Government policy.

The appellants sought the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman (time-bound pay scale) under a Circular dated 10.03.2017, which provides for such benefits to government employees after 10 and 20 years of service. However, their claim was rejected. Aggrieved, they filed a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed their petition observing that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 did not apply to Shiksha Karmi of the Panchayat cadre.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants filed the intra-court appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court.

It was argued by the appellants that their case was identical to that of Smt. Sona Sahu, who was granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman by the High Court. Therefore, the same benefit should be extended to them. They contended that they had completed the required years of service. Therefore, they were entitled to the time-bound pay scale under the Circular dated 10.03.2017.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the appellants were employees of the Panchayat Department prior to their absorption in 2018, and they were not State Government employees. It was submitted that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 applied to regular government servants, and not to Shiksha Karmis, whose service conditions are governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the Circular dated 10.03.2017 applies to Assistant Teachers under the School Education Department who have completed 10 years of service. It was observed that the petitioners' service as Shiksha Karmi under the Panchayat department cannot be treated as equivalent to service under the School Education Department. It was further observed that the principles of parity require that employees claiming equal treatment must be similarly situated in all material aspects.

The case of Smt. Sona Sahu was distinguished by the Division Bench. It was observed that she was directly appointed as government teacher, whereas the appellants were appointed by the Panchayat department.

Relying upon some judgments, it was held by the Division Bench that services of Shiksha Karmis governed by Panchayat rules are not entitled to pay scales or other benefits applicable to teachers of the School Education Department.

It was held by the Division Bench that the Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition based on a proper appreciation of facts and law, and no infirmity was found in the order.

With the aforesaid observations, the intra-court appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Mangal Ram Usendi & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Case No. : WA No. 310 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellants : Ashok Patil, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondents : Prasun Bhaduri, Government Advocate