1 2026:CGHC:10661-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 199 of 2026 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Tah And Distt. Raipur (C.G) 2. The Director Nagariya Prashasan Awam Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Mohd. Yunus Khan S/o Late Shri Idarsi Khan Aged About 41 Years Working As Peon In The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.03.02 17:21:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02 .03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants as well as Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed. Delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the State/appellants against the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 11883 of 2025 (Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the State/appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 184 of 2026 (State of Chhattisgarh & Another vs. Smt. 3 Neeta Thakur & Another) vide order dated 25.02.2026, observing as follows : “10. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 has observed as under:- “5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the bunch of these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is not disputed by counsel for the respondents. 6. Accordingly, all the impugned orders so far as it relates to the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated on the post of Peon. It is clarified that the petitioners are not entitled to get back wages, however, their seniority shall be reckoned from the initial date of their appointment without any break in service. 7. Accordingly, all the bunch of these writ petitions are allowed in terms of order dated 18-11-2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 12389 of 2025 in case of Jaichand Sarthi (supra).” 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the observation made by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, we are of the considered view that 4 learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 184 of 2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and the issues involved in the present appeal are identical to those in WA No. 184 of 2026. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the view taken in WA No. 185 of 2026 and does not find any reason to take a different view in the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in WA No. 184 of 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan