Reinstated employees retain seniority from initial appointment without break in service but forfeit back wages.

The Appellants (State of Chhattisgarh) filed a writ appeal challenging the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS No. 11497/2025

The original writ petition was filed by Respondent No. 1, who was working as a Peon in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur

The appeal was filed with a delay of 17 days, for which a condonation application (I.A. No. 02/2026) was moved

During the proceedings, all parties conceded that the legal issue and facts involved in this matter were identical to those already adjudicated by the same Division Bench in a previous judgment

1. Whether the delay of 17 days in filing the writ appeal ought to be condoned

2. Whether the findings and directions regarding reinstatement and seniority issued in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026 are applicable to the present respondent

The Court applied the principle of judicial consistency and the doctrine of parity.

It relied primarily on its own recent precedent in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026 (decided on 25.02.2026), which affirmed the Single Judge’s directions in Jaichand Sarthi v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 12389 of 2025)

The core legal rule established is that employees seeking reinstatement under identical circumstances are entitled to continuity of service for the purpose of seniority from their initial date of appointment, though they are not entitled to back wages

The Court first addressed the procedural delay, allowing the application for condonation after finding due consideration for the 17-day lapse

On the merits, the Court observed that the learned counsel for both the Appellants and the Respondents reached a consensus that the facts and legal issues were identical to those in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026

Upon perusing the records, the Court verified this identity of facts

In the predecessor case, the Court had upheld a Single Judge's order that quashed termination orders and directed the reinstatement of Peons.

The reasoning applied there—that no illegality or irregularity existed in the Single Judge’s order warranting interference—was deemed squarely applicable to the present case

Consequently, the Court found no reason to deviate from the view previously taken

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's order, resulting in the reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 to the post of Peon.

It held that while the respondent is not entitled to back wages, her seniority must be reckoned from the initial date of appointment without any break in service, strictly in terms of the judgment dated 25.02.2026 in WA No. 184/2026