1 2026:CGHC:20362-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 408 of 2026 1 - Aditya Pratap Singh S/o Gulab Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School Ranpur Khurd, -Block Ambikapur -District -Surguja C.G. 2 - Smt. Pooja Prasad W/o Pankaj Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Bhittikala - Block- Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 3 - Smt, Madhulika Verma, W/o Jayesh Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Bhittikala - Block Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. 4 - Smt Kausalya Singh W/o Raj Bahadur Singh Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As Head Master (Middle School) At Govt. Primary School , Bhittikala Block, Ambilapur -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 Bhwan 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. 5 - District Education Officer, Surguja District Surguja C.G. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.05.02 10:32:31 +0530 2 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surguja District Surguja C.G. 7 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. 8 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Surguja C.G. 9 - Block Education Officer, Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. 10 - Block Education Officer, Lundra District Surguja C.G. 11 – Smt. Suman Singh W/o Birendra Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt Middle School Kudar, Block, Lundra- District-Surguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr.Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent- State : Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1.5.2026 1. Heard Mr.Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State on I.A.No.01/2026, which is an application for condoantion of delay of 76 days in filing the present writ appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2026 is allowed. Delay of 76 days in filing the present writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeal 3 is heard finally. 4. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.9541/2025 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein. 5. 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.193/2026 (Pushpalata Manikpuri and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and 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.” 6. In view of above, the present writ appeal is also dismissed in 4 terms of the judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court in WA No.193/2026. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu