[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Chandra Lata Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026
1/5
2026:CGHC:14855
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 707 of 2026
1 - Smt. Chandra Lata Sahu W/o Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years
Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School,
Patel Para Gullu, Block- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 55 Years Presently
Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School, Patel
Para Gullu, Block- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Smt. Pushpa Sahu W/o Prem Narayan Sahu Aged About 50 Years
Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School,
Kosrangi, Block Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Bhagwati Sonkar S/o Devendra Sonkar Aged About 58 Years Presently
Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School, Banrasi,
Block- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Smt. Kanti Chandrakar W/o Ramesh Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 58
Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Bodra,
Block- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Dinbandhu Patel S/o Jagdu Ram Patel Aged About 59 Years Presently
Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School, Paraskol,
Block- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.04.04
12:05:20
+0530
2/5
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Commissioner Cum Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar Naya
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
5 - District Education Officer Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
7 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
8 - Block Education Officer Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
30/03/2026
1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records in relates to the case of
the petitioners from the possession of respondents
for its kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to pass an order holding that the petitioners are
entitled for grant of benefits of 1" and 2nd
Kramonnati Vetanaman on completion of 10 years of
services as the case may be in view/ light of the
order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. Sona Sahu Vs.
State of Chhhattisgarh and others passed in Writ
Appeal No. 261/2023 on 28.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-
P/3) and also in view of the circular/order dated
10.03.2017 (ANNEXURE-P/2) issued by the State
Government of Chhattisgarh.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be
pleased to direct the respondents to give all the
consequential benefits to the petitioners including the
arrears of pay with interest @ 18% per annum from
the date of the completion of 10 years of services till
the actual payment of Kramonnati Vetanman within a
stipulated period of 30 days.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be
pleased to pass an order holding that order passed in
the case of Smt. Sona Sahu Vs. State of
Chhhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Appeal No.
261/2023 on 28.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-P/3) is
squarely covered in the case of petitioners also and
may be disposed of with the similar line granting the
similar reliefs to the petitioners also.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to held that the action on the part of the respondents
by denying the benefits of Kramonnati Vetanman to
the similar situated persons by distinguishing from
the case of the Sona Sahu (supra) is arbitrary and
discriminatory and viloative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and also against the mandate of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Amrit
Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New
Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 714 and Lt. Col. Suprita
Chandel Versus Union of India and Others 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3664.
10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the
petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just
in the facts and circumstances of the case, including
awarding of the costs to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are
entitled for Kramonnati Vetanman in terms of decision in case of Sona
Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in W.A. No.261 of 2023, decided on
28.02.2024.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned
counsel for petitioners and would submit that case of the petitioners is
different than that of case of Sona Sahu. Petitioners were earlier
employee of Panchayat Department and thereafter, they were
absorbed in Education Department pursuant to policy decision taken
by State Government on 30.06.2018. Petitioners were not appointed as
regular Assistant Teacher by School Education Department but were
appointed by Janpad Panchayat. Coordinate Bench of this Court has
considered the issue with regard to grant of Kramonnati Vetanman to
such employee in WPS No.11009 of 2025 and other batch of writ
petitions and has dismissed those writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, upon asking, does not
dispute the submission of learned State counsel with respect to
petitioners' initial appointment under Panchayat Department by Janpad
Panchayat as also decision in WP(S) No.11009 of 2025.
5. Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the batch of
writ petitions lead case bearing WPS No. 11009 of 2025 with regard to
grant of Kramonnati to petitioners therein, has dismissed the writ
petitions and observed thus :-
"35. Considering the facts of the case that the
petitioners till absorption in pursuance of the policy
dated 30.06.2018 are not teachers of the School
Education Department, they were shikshakarmis
though their designation has been changed as
Assistant Teacher (panchayat), Teacher (panchayat)
and Lecturer (panchayat) respectively and they are
governed by the separate rules framed under the
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, therefore, the
petitioners are not fulfilling the criteria as laid down in
the circular dated 10.03.2017, the bunch of the writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed, accordingly, they
are dismissed."
6. Since the facts of the case of petitioners as is identical to the
facts of the case in WP(S) No.11009 of 2025 is not disputed, this
petition is also dismissed in terms of order passed in WPS No.11009
of 2025 and other connected case decided on 24.11.2025.
Sd/-- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
