Writ Appeal Dismissed Where Issues Are Identical to Previously Decided Bench Precedents on Similar Facts

The appellants, working as Head Masters (Primary School) in the Bilha Block, District Bilaspur, challenged the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS No. 9962 of 2025.

The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition, which sought relief related to their employment conditions or service benefits.

The appellants filed the present writ appeal with a 67-day delay, filing I.A. No. 1 of 2026 for condonation of said delay.

Both parties conceded that the legal issues in this appeal were identical to a previously decided matter by the same High Court.

1. Whether the delay of 67 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned.

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to relief under the Circular dated 10.03.2017, or if they are similarly situated to the petitioner in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

The court applied the principle of stare decisis and judicial consistency by relying on its own recent precedent in Pushpalata Manikpuri & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 193 of 2026), decided on 13.03.2026.

That precedent established that an intra-court appeal warrants no interference unless "palpable infirmities" are noticed in the Single Judge’s order.

Furthermore, the court applied the standard for condonation of delay, requiring "sufficient cause" to be shown for the lapse in time.

The Court first addressed the procedural delay, satisfying itself that the reasons assigned in I.A. No. 1 of 2026 constituted sufficient cause to condone the 67-day delay.

On the merits, the Court observed that the counsel for both the appellants and the State admitted that the facts and legal issues were identical to those in Pushpalata Manikpuri.

In that case, the Court had determined that petitioners failed to demonstrate they were similarly situated to the beneficiaries of previous favorable rulings (Sona Sahu) and that claims based on the Circular dated 10.03.2017 were "misconceived".

Finding no "palpable infirmities" in the Single Judge's reasoning and noting the lack of merit established in the identical precedent, the Court saw no reason to take a different view.

The Court dismissed the writ appeal, holding that it was devoid of merit based on the terms and reasoning set out in the judgment dated 13.03.2026 in WA No. 193 of 2026.

The order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.