1 2026:CGHC:24237-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 451 of 2026 1 - Smt. Savitri Yadav W/o Ratnakar Yadav Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School ) At Govt Primary School Yadavpara Lalmati Block- Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Smt Sangeeta Paikra W/o Kushal Kumar Paikra Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B) At Govt Primary School Asnihapara Kepi Block- Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Cum Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.06.18 10:18:13 +0530 2 5 - District Education Officer Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Block Education Officer Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) 9 - Basant Kumar Yadav S/o Bandhu Ram Yadav Aged About 55 Years Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Govt Primary School Padauli Block- Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) 10 - Smt Prabha Kachhap W/o Raghuraj Kachhap Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B) At Govt Middle School Lundra Block- Lundra District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Ruprendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.06.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and 3 considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 is allowed and delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.12532 of 2025 and other connected matters, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed in WA No.193 of 2026 (Pushpalata Manikpuri & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein this Court held as under:- “33. 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 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. 34. In view of the above, the writ appellants/petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to 4 the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 261/2023 (Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). Their claim under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 is, therefore, misconceived, and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is devoid of merit 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. 193 of 2026, 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. 193 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 193 of 2026. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed in WA No. 193 of 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu