Reinstatement with seniority from initial appointment is valid notwithstanding the denial of back wages.

The State of Chhattisgarh (Appellants) challenged the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS No. 11457/2025.

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

The Single Judge had quashed the impugned orders concerning the respondent, directing her reinstatement as a Peon with seniority from her initial date of appointment, though denying back wages.

The Appellants filed the present writ appeal with a 23-day delay, for which they moved an application (I.A. No. 02) for condonation.

1. Whether the delay of 23 days in preferring the writ appeal should be condoned?

2. Whether the directions for reinstatement and seniority benefits granted by the Single Judge were legally sustainable in light of existing precedents on identical issues?

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

It relied primarily on its own recent precedent in State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. [Name not specified in excerpt], Writ Appeal No. 184/2026, decided on 25.02.2026.

The core legal rule derived from this precedent is that when an issue has been adjudicated by a Division Bench in an identical factual matrix, the Court shall not take a divergent view, thereby upholding the quashing of termination orders and granting reinstatement with seniority benefits while excluding back wages.

The Court first addressed the procedural delay, finding the grounds for the 23-day delay sufficient and condoning it under I.A. No. 02.

On the merits, the Court observed that both the Appellants and Respondents were in agreement that the facts and legal questions involved in the current appeal were identical to those decided in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026.

In that preceding case, the Division Bench had concluded that the Single Judge committed no illegality or irregularity in quashing the impugned orders and directing reinstatement with seniority.

Integrating this to the present case, the Court held that since the circumstances were indistinguishable, there was no justification to depart from the earlier decision.

The Court thus applied the same reasoning to dismiss the challenge against the respondent’s reinstatement.

The holding affirms the Single Judge's order: Respondent No. 1 must be reinstated as a Peon; her seniority is to be reckoned from the initial date of appointment without a break in service, but she is not entitled to back wages.

The appeal was dismissed in terms of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 184/2026.