Reinstatement with seniority and service continuity upheld despite denial of back wages.

The Appellants (State of Chhattisgarh) challenged the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by a Single Judge in WPS No. 11811/2025.

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

The underlying order directed the reinstatement of Respondent No. 1, clarifying that while she was not entitled to back wages, her seniority was to be reckoned from her initial appointment date without any break in service.

The State preferred this appeal with a 23-day delay, filing an application (I.A. No. 02/2026) for condonation.

1. Whether the 23-day delay in filing the writ appeal by the State should be condoned?

2. Whether the Single Judge’s order directing reinstatement and seniority (without back wages) was sustainable in light of the Division Bench's prior ruling in identical matters?

The Court primarily relied on the principle of judicial consistency and the doctrine of stare decisis as applied to identical factual disputes.

It specifically followed the precedent set by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026, decided on 25.02.2026.

That precedent affirmed the quashing of termination orders and the reinstatement of employees on the post of Peon, granting seniority from the initial date of appointment while specifically excluding the payment of back wages.

The Court first addressed the procedural delay, granting the application for condonation after finding sufficient cause for the 23-day lapse.

On the merits, the Court noted that both the Appellants and Respondents admitted that the factual matrix and the legal issues involved were identical to those decided in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026.

In the earlier case, the Division Bench had concluded that the Single Judge committed no illegality in ordering reinstatement based on the precedent of Jaichand Sarthi v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 12389 of 2025).

Given the parity of facts, the Court determined there was no justification to depart from its previous view and found no merit in the State's challenge to the Single Judge's order.

It held that the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to reinstatement with seniority benefits from the date of initial appointment, without any break in service, but remains ineligible for back wages.

The appeal was dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 25.02.2026 passed in WA No. 184/2026.