The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. Since all these writ petitions raise substantially similar questions of fact and law, they have been ordered to be clubbed together.

Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matters were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure consistency in the adjudication of the issues involved.

3. All the petitioners, in the present batch of writ petitions, seek a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for absorption in the School Education Department on the strength of the order dated 23.07.2020. Their contention is that upon completion of two years of service, they are entitled to be absorbed with all consequential benefits, in the same manner as extended to the Shiksha Karmis of Panchayat and the Local Bodies Teachers who were absorbed in the School Education Department with effect from 01.11.2020.

4. For the purpose of convenient adjudication, WPS No.1389/2021 is treated as the lead matter, as the reliefs claimed across all the petitions are identical in nature. Accordingly, the reliefs sought in WPS No.1389/2021 are taken to represent the reliefs claimed in the entire batch, and the same are being considered for adjudication herein, which are as follows :-

“i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for grant of benefit of increment and other benefit as they are the employee of the Education Department or in alternative the petitioner may also be absorb to Education Department. immediately on completion of 2 years of services, with all consequential benefit from initial date of appointment, ii. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

5. The facts, as projected in the writ petitions, reveal that the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III [now re-designated as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat)], Shiksha Karmi Grade-II [now Teacher (Panchayat)] and Shiksha Karmi Grade-I [now Lecturer (Panchayat)] in different years, namely 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2016, respectively. Pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2018, the services of the petitioners, who had completed eight years of service in the Panchayat Department or in the Local Bodies came to be absorbed in the School Education Department. Upon such absorption, their nomenclature underwent a change. The Teachers absorbed from Panchayat/Municipal Corporation/Local Bodies were re-designated as “Teacher (Local Bodies)”. Similarly, the Teachers working in Schools run by the School Education Department were re-designated as “Teacher (E- LB)”, and those working in the ‘T’ category were renamed as “Teacher (T-LB)”. Separate cadres were also created corresponding to the revised nomenclatures. They were extended the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission with effect from 01.07.2018, along with other consequential service benefits from time to time. It was specifically provided that the date 01.07.2018 shall be treated as the cut-off date for determining pay fixation and other service-related benefits.

6. It was further stipulated that the Teachers shall not be en