Dismissal of Writ Appeal Where Claimants Are Not Similarly Situated to Beneficial Precedent

The appellants (29 individuals), serving as various categories of teachers and headmasters in District Balod, Chhattisgarh, filed a writ appeal challenging the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by a Single Judge in WPS No. 11009/2025

The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition which sought certain service-related benefits

The appellants also filed I.A. No. 01/2026 seeking condonation of a 37-day delay in filing the appeal

1. Whether the delay of 37 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the reliefs claimed, particularly in light of the Court's previous ruling in Pushpalata Manikpuri and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others

The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and territorial consistency in judicial precedents, specifically relying on its recent judgment in Pushpalata Manikpuri and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WA No.193/2026), which clarified the eligibility criteria for claims under the Circular dated 10.03.2017

It also adhered to the principle that intra-court appeals warrant no interference unless palpable infirmities are noticed in the Single Judge’s reasoning

The Court first addressed the procedural delay, finding the reasons for the 37-day lag sufficient to allow the condonation application

On the merits, the Division Bench observed that the legal issue involved had been conclusively settled in the case of Pushpalata Manikpuri

In that precedent, the Court held that petitioners who failed to demonstrate they were "similarly situated" to the petitioners in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh could not claim benefits under the Circular dated 10.03.2017

Since the appellants in the present case were governed by the same facts and legal principles as Pushpalata Manikpuri, the Court found the writ appeal to be misconceived and devoid of merit

It held that the issues raised were identical to those in WA No. 193/2026, and since the appellants failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factors or palpable infirmities in the Single Judge's order, no relief could be granted

The final order dismissed the appeal with no costs