Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11065 (CHH)

SUBHASH RAO PAWAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/1653/2025 · 2025-03-06

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:11072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1653 of 2025 1 - Subhash Rao Pawar S/o Daulat Ram Pawar Aged About 65 Years Retired Operator From Office Of The Executive Engineer E/m Heavy Machinery Division, Water Resource Department, Bilaspur, R/o Bhagwanpur, Ambikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - S.N. Mishra S/o Late Vinayak Mishra Aged About 75 Years Retired Electrician Grade-Ii From Office Of Executive Engineer E/m Light Machinery, Tubewell And Gate Division Bilaspur, R/o Village Deviganj, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Brahspatiya Bai W/o Devsharan Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Kishun Nagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) The Petitioner Is Lrs Of Deceased Employee Devsharan Ram ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Narth Block Sector 19 Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Hasdev Kachar, Water Resources Department Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer E/m Light Machinery Tubewell And Gate Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Executive Engineer E/m Heavy Machinery Division Water Resource Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Swapnil Keshavi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajeet Singh, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Swapnil Keshavi, learned counsel petitioners as well as Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to to issue the direction for the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of leave encashment. 10.2. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective petitioners were initially appointed on temporary basis on the post of Unskilled Labour in the Public Works Department. Petitioners were discharging their duty up to the satisfaction of their superior authorities without any complaint and subsequently, they have become permanent employees and have retired from their services. During their service, the petitioners have performed their duties and obligations bestowed upon them with utmost sincerity and to the best of their capabilities with an unblemished service record. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & 3 Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022, the petitioners are 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 petitioners have 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. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners 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 their claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (surpa), their claims 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 Dey