1 2026:CGHC:19241-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 336 of 2026 1. Sadhram Markam S/o Shyam Lal Markam Aged About 49 Years Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Janpad Primary School, Bilha, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ramjee Chaturvedee S/o Punau Ram Chaturvedee Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School, Udgan, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Anita Kaushik W/o Rajesh Kaushik Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Janpad Girls Primary School, Bilha, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) 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 Urban Administration and 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. Director Directorate of Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.27 17:56:59 +0530 2 7. Block Education Officer Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun 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 27 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, an application seeking condonation of delay. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons assigned in the application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed and the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal is 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.9962 of 2025 titled as “Sadhram Markam & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others” 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. 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 4 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 Brijmohan