In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by more than 250 teachers who were seeking retrospective absorption and seniority benefits in the state's School Education Department.
Court's Verdict on Retrospective Benefits
A single bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad delivered the judgment on November 28, stating that the petitioners are not entitled to claim notional absorption from the date they completed two years of service. The court emphasized that judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.
Background of the Case
The teachers involved in the case were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, Grade-II, and Grade-III. These positions have since been re-designated as Lecturer (Panchayat), Teacher (Panchayat), and Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), respectively. Their absorption into the School Education Department was finalized under a policy dated 30 June 2018.
However, the crux of their grievance stemmed from a subsequent 2020 policy. This newer policy allowed for absorption after just two years of service, a significant reduction from the earlier mandate of eight years. The petitioners, who were absorbed under the 2018 rules, sought parity in service benefits with teachers who benefited from the more favorable 2020 policy.
Key Arguments and Court's Reasoning
The teachers argued for notional absorption from the date they completed two years of service, aiming to align their seniority and benefits with the later batch. Their actual absorption had become effective from 1 July 2018, and they received the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission from this cut-off date.
In its detailed observation, the High Court made a pivotal statement: "Mere dissatisfaction with the authority's decision or a bare claim of parity cannot, by itself, invoke the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction." The bench further clarified that unless litigants can establish an infringement of a legal right, or demonstrate clear arbitrariness, discrimination, or other constitutional flaws in the process, the court would not intervene.
The court found no such illegality, procedural lapse, or irrationality in the government's decision to apply the 2018 policy to the petitioners. Therefore, it deemed their challenge unsustainable.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling sets a clear precedent regarding the limitations of seeking parity based on subsequent, more favorable policies. It reinforces that absorption and seniority benefits are governed by the policy in force at the time of an employee's regularization. The judgment underscores that a later change in policy does not create an automatic retrospective right for those already absorbed under previous terms.
For the over 250 teachers involved, this means their service benefits and seniority will continue to be calculated from their official absorption date of 1 July 2018, as per the 2018 policy which required eight years of service in the panchayat cadre.
