Reinstated employees are entitled to seniority from initial appointment date notwithstanding the denial of back wages.

The Respondent No. 1, Smt. Meena Pal, was employed as a Peon in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur

She filed a writ petition (WPS No. 11805/2025) challenging certain orders related to her service.

On 10.12.2025, a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders and directing her reinstatement as a Peon

The Single Judge further ordered that while she would not be entitled to back wages, her seniority would be reckoned from her initial date of appointment without any break in service

The State (Appellants) preferred the present writ appeal against this order with a 23-day delay

1. Whether the 23-day delay in preferring the writ appeal should be condoned?

2. Whether the Single Judge's order directing reinstatement with seniority but without back wages was legally sustainable, given the identical facts in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026?

The Court applied the principle of judicial consistency and the doctrine of stare decisis regarding decisions by coordinate benches of the same Court.

It primarily relied on its own precedent established in the judgment dated 25.02.2026 in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026, which affirmed the reinstatement of employees on the post of Peon with seniority but without back wages based on the ruling in Jaichand Sarthi v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 12389 of 2025)

The Court first addressed the procedural delay of 23 days in filing the appeal and, upon finding sufficient grounds in the application for condonation (I.A. No. 02), allowed the same

Moving to the merits, the Division Bench noted that counsel for both the Appellants (State) and the Respondents admitted that the factual matrix and legal issues involved were identical to those already adjudicated in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026

The Court reviewed the Single Judge's reliance on the Jaichand Sarthi case, which established that such petitioners are entitled to reinstatement and seniority from the initial date of appointment but are precluded from claiming back wages

Finding no illegality or irregularity in the Single Judge’s application of this precedent, the Court held that there was no reason to deviate from the view taken in the previous identical writ appeal

On the merits, the Court held that the issue was squarely covered by the precedent in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order to reinstate Respondent No. 1 with seniority benefits but without back wages

No costs were awarded