Chattisgarh High Court
Tilak Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:5600
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
Digitally signed by
RAVI SHANKAR
NAFR
MANDAVI
Date: 2025.02.05
15:53:34 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 875 of 2025
1 - Tilak Ram Sahu S/o Patiram Sahu Aged About 53 Years Posted And
Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Chivranj, Block-
Kanker, Distt.- Kanker (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Sarojni Sahu W/o Anirudhd Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years
Posted And Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. H.S. School Dhanapuri,
Block- Gurur, Dist.- Balod (C.G.)
3 - Pramod Kumar S/o Dev Singh Aged About 37 Years Posted And
Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. H.S. School Dhanapuri, Block-
Gurur, Distt.- Balod (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Joint Director Raipur, Division Raipur (C.G.)
2
5 - Joint Director Bastar, Division Bastar (C.G.)
6 - District Education Officer Balod, District Balod (C.G.)
7 - District Education Officer Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)
8 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.)
9 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Kanker, District Kanker
(C.G.)
10 - Block Education Officer Block Gurur, District- Balod (C.G.)
11 - Block Education Officer Block Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)
12 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Gurur, District - Balod
(C.G.)
13 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kanker, District- Kanker
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
30/01/2025
1. Heard Mr. Pramod Ramteke, learned counsel for the petitioners
as well as Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent/s.
2. By this petition, this petitioners have sought following relief(s) :
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to call the entire records in
related to the case of the petitioners from
the possession of respondent for its kind
consideration.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authority
to consider the case of the petitioners for
grant of benefits of Kramonnati
Vetanmaan/Time pay scale on completion
of 10 years of services in light of the
circular dated 10.03.2017 issued by the
State Govt. and order passed by the
Division bench in case of Smt. Sona Sahu
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh order dated
28.02.2024.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authority
to give all benefits of petitioners including
the arrears of pay with 18% interest per
annum from the date of completion of 10
years of services till the actual payment of
Kramonnati Vetanmaan within the
stipulated period of 30 days.
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to disposed off the instant writ
petition with similar order passed in the
case of Smt. Sona Sahu Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & others in Writ Appeal No.
261/2023 order passed on 28.02.2024.
10.5 That, any other relief may also be
granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble
Court deemed fit in facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi by the State
Government and the petitioners are performing his duty on the
said place regularly and petitioners service are clean and no any
inquiry has been conduct and thereafter the service has been
regularized after successfully completion of probation period.
Presently, the petitioners have completed their 10 years of service
on one post without getting any promotion and Kramonnati and
worked on the same post of Shiksha Karmi. In this regards the
State Govt. issued circular dated 10.03.2017 wherein clearly
mentioned in para no. 2 the teachers who have completed their
10 years of services without getting any Promotion are entitled to
get benefits of Kramonnati Vetanmaan. As the claim of the
petitioners is with regard to grant of Kramonnati Vetanman after
completion of 10 years of their service. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that with regard to grant of Kramonnati
Vetanman some circular has also been issued by the respondent-
State. Apart from this, Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt.
Sona Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in W.A.
No.261 of 2023 has also considered the identical issue. The
petitioners are also entitle for first Kramonnati Vetanman and
second Kramonnati Vetanman. He further submits that at present
this petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to
make a representation to the respondents No. 2 & 3/competent
authority in light of order passed by this Court in W.A. No.261 of
2023 dated 28/02/2024.
4. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been
opposed by the learned State counsel.
5. Be that as it may, looking to the limited prayer made by learned
counsel for petitioners, this petition at this stage is disposed of
permitting the petitioners to make representation raising all
grounds as raised in this writ petition before respondents No. 2 &
3/competent authority annexing all relevant documents and
judgment of this Court passed in W.A. No.261 of 2023. On such
representation being made, it is expected that the respondents
No.2 & 3/competent authority shall consider and decide the same
in accordance with law considering the circular(s) issued in this
regard, in light of judgment of this Court in W.A. No.261 of 2023
within further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of such
representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on merits of this case, it is for the respondents No. 2
& 3 to consider the claim of petitioners on its own merits.
6. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
