1 2025:CGHC:13518-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 196 of 2025 1 - Devendra Kumar Shripande S/o Neelam Chand Shripande Aged About 51 Years Present Aged About 56 Years, Junior Assistant Posted In The Office Of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur District Surguja District Surguja (C.G.), At Present Posted In The Office Of C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation Pratappur Branch District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Rajendra Singh Chhira S/o Taval Singh Chhira Aged About 53 Years At Present Aged About 63 Years Working As Junior Assistant In The Office Of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Jagdalpur, P.S. Civil Lines, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.), At Present The Appellant No. 2 Is Retired From The Post Of Junior Assistant Posted In The Office Of C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation Branch Keshlure District Jagdalpur (C.G.) R/o Ware Housing Corporation Campus Baliram Kashyap Ward No. 43 Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur (Bastar) (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Khadya Nagrik Aapurti And Upbhokta Swarakshan Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.26 18:02:53 +0530 2 2 - Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head Office N- 3, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Karmik Prabandhak Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head Office, M-3, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1 / State. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1550/2017 (Devendar Kumar Shripande and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 191/2025 (Madhav Prasad Sarathe and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 20.03.2025, observing as follows : “10. From perusal of the impugned order, it would also reveal that the learned Single Judge after adverting the entire facts of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Registrar General of India and Another v. V. Thippa Setty and Others” 1998 (8) SCC 690, “Union of India and Others v. Sheela Rani” 2007(15) SCC 230, “M. Janardhan and Others v. State of A.P. and Others” 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 298, “Masood Akhtar Khan and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others” 1990(4) SCC 24 and also “Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Others” 2006(4) SCC 1, passed the order dismissing the writ petition, holding that as per the circular dated 05.03.2008, the petitioners are not entitled for any monetary benefits prior to the date of their regularization. This Court is not found force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellants in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. 11. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra- court appeal, no interference is usually warranted 4 unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 12. In view of the above, the writ appeal being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 191/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 191/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 191/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed in WA No. 191/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet