1 2025:CGHC:2993-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 15 of 2025 1 - Mukti Paik S/o Late Shri Chandro Paik Aged About 66 Years R/o Behind Idgah Church Para, Basna, Village And Post Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Pin Code 493554. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - J.M. Higher Secondary School Through Principal Jagdishpur, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Disrict Education Officer District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17-01-2025 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 19-11-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3731 of 2022 (Mukti Paik Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 884 of 2024 (Smt. Mamta Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 14-01-2025 observing as follows : “9. The appellant was working with respondent No. 3/School as Lecturer and the she was retired from service on 30.09.2020. It appears that after retirement, the appellant joined the school to teach students on 01.10.2020, however, there is no document to demonstrate that the appellant was legally permitted to join the school to teach students. The order with regard to the reappointment in favor of the appellant was issued on 19.03.2021 by respondent No. 2. The appellant rejoined the service on 19.03.2021 and was permitted to work till the end of the academic session i.e. on 30.04.2021. 3 10. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that it is not in dispute that the salary/honorarium for the period from 19.03.2021 to 30.04.2021 has already been paid to the appellant by the respondent authorities, but the claim of the appellant for salary/honorarium for the period from 01.10.2020 to 18.03.2021, is not supported with any documentary evidence. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant was rightly rejected by the respondent authorities. 11. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 884 of 2024, this appeal may also be disposed of 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 4 identical to WA No. 884 of 2024, hence, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 884 of 2024. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 14-01-2025 passed in WA No. 884 of 2024 (Smt. Mamta Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil