1 2026:CGHC:7570-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 490 of 2022 1 - Manoj Kumar Sai S/o Shri Shivcharan Sai, Aged About 35 Years R/o Collector Colony, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohit Lal S/o Situ Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o Officers Colony Shakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ram Ratan Shyam S/o Dhanwar, Aged About 43 Years R/o Puranapara, Shakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Registrar General Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Judge, District Court, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Judge, District Court Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Meera Kanwar D/o Shri Mukund Singh Kanwar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bangalipara, Gali No. 3, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Champa Kamal W/o Shri Rajendra Singh Kamal, Aged About 29 Years R/o Bangalipara, Gali No. 3 New Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.12 18:56:09 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/02/2026 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 4 & 5 on I.A. No. 5 of 2026, which is an application for withdrawal of the appeal. 2. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2016 has been preferred by the appellants assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 756/2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellants seeking grant of annual increments and other consequential service benefits has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were appointed on 03.10.2001 on the posts of Assistant Grade-III and Process Writer in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, 3 Bilaspur, and though the pay scale was mentioned in the order of appointment, they have been denied annual increments and consequential service benefits for more than two decades despite rendering continuous and satisfactory service. It is contended that similarly situated employees in the District Court, Raigarh have been regularized and extended service benefits, and therefore denial of similar treatment to the appellants is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, it is urged, failed to appreciate the claim of parity and dismissed the petition on a hyper-technical ground. It is further submitted that the writ petition, read as a whole, clearly sought all consequential service benefits including arrears, which inherently covered the claim for regular treatment and parity with regular Assistant Grade-III employees. The appellants have served for about 22 years against sanctioned posts and have been discharging duties identical to regular employees; thus, the impugned order has resulted in grave injustice. The learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside and the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition be granted in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the pendency of the present writ appeal, respondent No. 1 has passed an order dated 05.07.2024 whereby the services of the appellants have been absorbed, and in view of the said subsequent development, the original cause of action giving rise to the present appeal no longer survives and the appeal has become infructuous. It is, therefore, 4 prayed that the appellants be permitted to withdraw the present writ appeal, with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law in respect of any fresh cause of action arising out of the subsequent order, if so advised. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties would submit that, the application seeking withdrawal of the present writ appeal does not warrant grant of liberty in the manner prayed for. It is contended that the appeal was filed challenging a well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the issues raised therein have already attained finality on merits. The subsequent order dated 05.07.2024, whereby the services of the appellants have been absorbed, is an independent administrative decision and does not revive or validate the claims earlier rejected by this Court. Grant of liberty to agitate the same or substantially similar claims afresh would amount to permitting re-litigation of issues which stood concluded, thereby causing unnecessary prejudice to the answering respondents and defeating the principles of finality and judicial discipline. It is, therefore, prayed that if this Hon’ble Court is inclined to permit withdrawal of the appeal, the same be dismissed as withdrawn without granting any liberty, reserving all rights and contentions of the respondents in respect of any future proceedings, if initiated. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. 5 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 5 of 2026 and considering the submission made on behalf of the appellants that they do not wish to press the present writ appeal in view of subsequent developments, this Court finds sufficient cause to allow the said interlocutory application. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5 of 2026 is allowed. In consequence thereof, the writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 8. However, as the issues raised in the appeal stood adjudicated by the learned Single Judge and no justification is made out for reserving liberty to re-agitate the same cause, the dismissal shall be without any liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved