1 CGHC010186832026 2026:CGHC:30122-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 602 of 2026 Lalita Sahu W/o Harendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 42 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Biroda, Block- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director, Raipur, Education Division, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Block Education Officer, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 10 - Neetu Sinha W/o Bhagirathi Sinha Aged About 41 Years Posted And Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Satpara, Block- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Bhagirathi Sinha S/o Late Sakha Ram Sinha, Aged About 52 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At B.D. Govt. H.S. School, Abhanpur, Block- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 12 - Gyanendra Mishra S/o Chandrabhhan Mishra, Aged About 46 Years Posted And Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Tamaseoni, Block- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, 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 16.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pramod Ramteke, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and 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 109 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.11204 of 2025 and other connected matters, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein. 3 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 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. 4 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 Chandra