1 2026:CGHC:22520-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 361 of 2026 Smt. Kumari Bai Sahu W/o Ramesh Prasad Sahu Aged About 61 Years Head Master, Government Middle School, Bisanpur, Block And Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 10:35:08 +0530 2 13.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S). No. 5416/2024 (Smt. Kumar Bai Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the appellant had initially filed an original application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 2389/1989, titled Kumari Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others, raising grievance regarding discrimination in the matter of appointment vis-à-vis Kamla Bai Sahu, contending that despite securing higher marks in the school examination, the appellant was denied equal treatment in service benefits. The said original application was subsequently transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as W.P.(S) No. 847/2003 and thereafter, upon reorganization of the State and creation of Chhattisgarh, it stood transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh and was registered as W.P.(S) No. 187/2005. The said writ petition was decided on 26.02.2016 by observing that both the appellant and said Kamla Bai Sahu had been granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher from 23.03.1989 and that the appellant was later 3 appointed as Lower Division Teacher from 15.04.1991 and granted regular pay-scale with effect from 11.11.1994, and thus the Court treated the grievance as substantially redressed and disposed of the petition as infructuous. However, liberty was expressly granted to the appellant to move afresh if any cause of action still survived. According to the appellant, the issue of seniority and pay fixation between her and Kamla Bai Sahu was never adjudicated on merits and despite such liberty, the subsequent writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5416/2024 was dismissed without calling for reply from the respondents. It is the case of the appellant that both she and Kamla Bai Sahu had served as Head Mistress in Middle School and since Kamla Bai Sahu has now expired, the surviving dispute pertains only to fixation of proper pay and payment of arrears. As the appellant is due to retire on 30.06.2026, the present writ appeal has been filed seeking appropriate direction for consideration of her claim regarding pay fixation and consequential arrears. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition by observing that the issue relating to appointment was no longer in dispute, without properly appreciating that the earlier order dated 26.02.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 187/2005 had only treated the original grievance regarding appointment as redressed and expressly reserved liberty to the appellant, namely Kumari Bai, to approach the Court afresh if any surviving cause of action remained. It is submitted that the said liberty order was never challenged by the State of Chhattisgarh or its authorities and therefore attained finality, but the learned Single 4 Judge failed to consider that the present dispute was not regarding appointment but with respect to inter-se pay fixation, seniority and consequential arrears vis-à-vis Kamla Bai Sahu. Learned counsel further submits that despite the specific claim being confined to pay parity and arrears, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition without calling for any reply from the respondents and proceeded merely on presumption, thereby overlooking that the appellant’s grievance pertains to a continuing wrong, as incorrect pay fixation has recurring civil consequences affecting salary and retiral benefits. It is contended that since the appellant has consistently asserted entitlement to the same pay treatment as granted to Kamla Bai Sahu, and as the issue of pay fixation was never adjudicated earlier on merits, the appellant was entitled to fresh consideration in terms of the liberty granted by the earlier order. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted for consideration after obtaining reply from the respondents and adjudicating the claim of pay fixation and arrears on merits. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by recording that the appellant, namely Kumari Bai, had initially approached the competent forum seeking parity in appointment with Kamla Bai Sahu, who had been appointed earlier on 23.03.1989 under the “Operation Black Board” scheme, whereas the appellant was subsequently appointed as Assistant Teacher under a different scheme meant for Junior Primary Schools in villages having population between 200 to 300 and joined service pursuant to appointment order dated 15.04.1991. The learned Single Judge further noted that during the pendency of the original proceedings, the appellant had already secured appointment and later regular pay-scale, and therefore the earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 187/2005 was disposed of on 26.02.2016 by treating the original grievance as having become infructuous without adjudicating the issue on merits. Upon examining the service record and documents filed by the parties, the learned Single Judge observed that the appointment of Kamla Bai Sahu was admittedly prior in point of time and under a different scheme, and consequently the claim of the appellant for seniority above Kamla Bai Sahu was not legally sustainable. On that basis, the learned Single Judge repelled the appellant’s submission regarding seniority and dismissed the writ petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon a careful perusal of 6 the impugned order, we find that the same has been passed by the learned Single Judge upon due consideration of the material on record and is supported by cogent, sound, and legally sustainable reasons. It is well settled that in an intra-court appeal, interference is warranted only when the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, palpable infirmity, or perversity apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, on a plain and meaningful reading of the impugned order, no such infirmity or perversity is discernible so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet