Writ appeal dismissed as matter stands covered by ocular precedent involving identical facts and issues.

The seven appellants, working as Head Masters (Primary School) in Block Baikunthpur, District Korea, filed a writ appeal challenging the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10401 of 2025.

The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition seeking relief related to their employment conditions.

The appeal was filed with a delay of 79 days, necessitating an application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01).

1. Whether the delay of 79 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned.

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to relief under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 based on the claim of being similarly situated to the petitioner in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The court applied the principle of sufficient cause for the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.

Regarding the merits, the court relied on its own recent precedent in Pushpalata Manikpuri & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 193 of 2026), which established that intra-court appeals warrant no interference unless palpable infirmities are noticed in the Single Judge's order.

It further applied the principle that claimants must demonstrate they are factually "similarly situated" to previous successful litigants to claim parity under specific Government Circulars.

The Court first addressed the procedural delay and, finding the reasons in the application to be sufficient, condoned the 79-day lapse.

On the merits, the Court observed that both the appellants and the State counsel conceded that the factual and legal issues were identical to those decided in Pushpalata Manikpuri.

In that precedent, the Court held that the appellants failed to prove they were similarly situated to the petitioner in the Smt. Sona Sahu case and that their reliance on the Circular dated 10.03.2017 was misconceived.

Following the doctrine of stare decisis for matters of identical facts within the same jurisdiction, the Court found no reason to depart from its previous findings.

The Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the Single Judge’s order or prove parity with previous successful claimants.

The appeal was dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed in WA No. 193 of 2026.