1 2025:CGHC:9872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1466 of 2025 1 - Janmanjay S/o Shri Uday Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Village Panchayat Dhouradarha P.S. And Tahsil Baramkela District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Fathers Name Has Wrongly Been Mentioned As Uderam In (Anne. P- 2 ) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thruogh The Secretary Public Works Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Mantralaya Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Division Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Division Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Sub Division Sarangarh District - Raigarh Now District - Sarangarh -Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Raigarh Division Baramkela District - Raigarh Now District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.28 16:38:17 +0530 2 7 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, learned counsel petitioner as well as Ms. Poorva Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to comply the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 3870/2021 with regard to leave encashment and paid the said benefits with interest. ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed under the respondent authorities as contingency unskilled labour on 01.04.1978 and thereafter the petitioner 3 services was regularized on 23.08.2008 as contingency unskilled labour on regular pay scale at 2610-60-3150-65-3540/-. After the appointment of the petitioner, he was working all along with utmost honesty, sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors. On being completing the length of service, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.12.2024. The petitioner was the regular employee under the respondents and after his superannuation, the respondents have going to complete the formalities for paying the pension and other service benefits but declined to pay the leave encashment without any rhymes and reason. The petitioner is also entitled for the Leave Encashment. The respondent authorities have started paying pension to the petitioner and in addition to this, the petitioner is also entitled for grant of Leave Encashment but till date benefit of leave encashment has not been extended to the petitioner. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022, the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment. 4. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioner and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner has completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 4 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority within the period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate his claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (surpa), his claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra) expeditiously preferably within the period of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of the said representation. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi