1 2026:CGHC:4273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11759 of 2025 1 - Dr Ruchi Jain D/o Ramesh Kumar Jain Aged About 42 Years R/o D- 313, Sector 5, Near Bank Of Baroda, Tagore Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Technical Education, Manpower And Planning Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Technical Education, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Public Service Commission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 23 /01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents that, in light of the judgment of tthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8097- 8122/2024 by order dated 22.08.2024, which categorically directed that the benefit of regularisation be extended to all those lecturers/Petitioners who had approached the 2 learned Single Bench, the Petitioner's. services be forthwith regularised; 10. 2 Declare and hold that the Petitioner being one of the writ petitioners whose case was decided by the learned Single 2017 Bench in the common judgment dated 02.01. in W.P.(S) No. 3321/2016 squarely falls within the class expressly protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 22.08.2024 in C.A. Nos. 8097-8122/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Gopi Sao & Ors.), which clarified that the benefit of regularisation would extend to all parties who had approached the learned Single Judge; and consequently hold that any refusal or failure to extend the same benefit to the Petitioner is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, being contrary to parity, non- discrimination, and the binding effect of appellate directions. 10.3 Direct the Respondents to extend to the Petitioner all consequential service benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of salary, and pensionary benefits, as if she had been regularised along with other similarly placed petitioners, within a time-bound period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;. 10.4 Quash and set aside any contrary reliance placed by the Respondents upon the termination order dated 17.08.2016 or any subsequent or connected adverse orders, by holding that such orders stand eclipsed and rendered unenforceable in light of the categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. Nos. 8097-8122/2024 dated 22.08.2024 as the Apex Court has directed that all petitioners who had approached the learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court be extended the benefit of regularisation, any departmental action seeking to terminate or otherwise negate the Petitioner's service tenure is devoid of legal sanctity. 10.5 Pass any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in this writ petition has also filed WP (S) No. 3321/2016 which was analogously heard along with other writ petitions details of which is forming part of Annexure P/1 and all the writ petitions came to be dismissed including WP (S) No. 2462/2014 ‘ Gopi Sao & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors’. The writ petitions were dismissed, however, Writ Appeal filed by the appellant Gopi Sao and others came to be allowed in Writ Appeal No. 3 14/2017 and connected maters. The writ appeal filed by the petitioners were allowed and the judgment passed in the writ appeal was put to challenge by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal bearing No. 8097-2122/2024 was also dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2024 and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition at this stage with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance against order of dismissal of her writ petition. 4. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 5. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey