1 2025:CGHC:43492-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 635 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Pashudhan Vikas, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Block No. 3, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.2) 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.3) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bal Krishna Sahu S/o Late Dashrath Lal Sahu Aged About 62 Years Retired Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Veterinary Services, R/o 417, Sunder Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Urla, Post Bmy Charouda, District- Durg Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.4) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey and Mr. Om R. Sahu, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.08.29 10:43:51 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for appellant / State. Also heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey and Mr. Om R. Sahu, learned counsel for respective respondents on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 146 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application i.e. I.A. No. 01/2025, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard finally. 3. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6484/2021 (Bal Krishna Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 253/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Chandra Kumar Singh and Another) vide order dated 21.04.2025, observing as follows : “11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that it is very 3 unfortunate that the retiral dues were not paid by respondent authorities on the ground that the previous petition is pending so they are not paying any retiral dues but now this Court held that the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) in WPS No. 4803/2019 is not sustainable and petitioner is employee of State Government. Admittedly, the age of retirement of the State Government employee at the relevant time was 62 years. Leaned Single Judge also observed that on the basis of aforesaid discussions, in the light of above mentioned decisions and the manner in which the deceased petitioner was retired from services and his retiral dues were held, both the petitions stand allowed. The impugned order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) in WPS No. 4803 of 2019 is hereby set aside. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 in WPS No. 4803/2019 and respondents No. 1 & 2 in WPS No. 3037/2022 are directed to calculate all retiral dues of late Ravi Kumar Singh till his death or his date of retirement whichever is earlier and the same be released as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of that order to his legal representative i.e. Chandra Kumar Singh (petitioner herein). 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition, as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 4 13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 253/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. 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. 253/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 253/2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 21.04.2025 passed in WA No. 253/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet