1 2025:CGHC:18293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2736 of 2025 1 - Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Tarachand Jain Aged About 68 Years Retired Ilman R/o Village Sagoriya Tahsil Gadarwada District - Narsinghpur (M.P.) 2 - Girwar Singh S/o Jhunnilal Singh Aged About 67 Years Retired Skillfu Assistant R/o Village Amhata District - Domoh (M.P) 3 - Ramprasad Sahu S/o Jageshwar Prasad Shu Aged About 67 Years Retired Operator R/o Ward No. 10 Bardadih District - Satna (M.P.) 4 - Arun Kumar Joshi S/o Late M.S. Joshi Aged About 71 Years Retired Mechanic R/o Nehru Nagar Geetanjali Vihar Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Suresh Kumar Bharti S/o Late Narayan Bharti Aged About 71 Years Retired Operator R/o Jarhabhatha Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.04.23 23:55:49 +0530 2 6 - Narendra Kumar Naidu S/o J.D. Bhupati Rao Aged About 68 Years Retired Electrician R/o 27 Kholi Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Water Resources Department Mantralaya Atal Nagar New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintending Engineer Water Resources Department Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Engineer (E And M) Light Machinery Nalkup And Gate Division Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner Nos.1 to 6 retired from service on 31.03.2019, 31.12.2018, 31.01.2019, 3 30.04.2016, 30.09.2016 and 31.05.2018 respectively and as per Rule 33 of Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Leave) Rules 2010, he was entitled to encash the leave not exceeding 300 days, however, the surrender of leave and its encashment has been granted only for 120 days instead of 300 days which was maximum accumulated in his earned leave account and available to the petitioner. 2. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33 of Rules, 2019 would be relevant here and is reproduced here for the sake of reference : “33. Leave preparatory to retirement – (1) A government servant may be permitted by the authority competent to grant leave to take leave preparatory to retirement to the extent of earned leave due, not exceeding 300 days together with half pay leave due, subject to condition that such leave extends upto and includes the date of retirement.” 3. The issue as has been raised is not clarified by Annexure P-2 as it only says that the petitioners were entitled to surrender and encash only 120 days whereas the petitioners have claimed that 300 days were available in his earned leave account, for which, he was entitled. The factual aspects are need to be clarified. Therefore, instead of keeping the petition pending, it would be appropriate to dispose of the same. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners may file representation before respondents No.3 claiming his earned leave encashment of 300 days within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and on such representation being filed, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent No.3 within a further period of 3 months by passing a reasoned order clarifying and showing the details as to how many days were accumulated in the earned leave account of the 4 petitioner and how much leave, the petitioners were entitled for encashment. If the petitioners are aggrieved by such order, they shall have liberty to avail appropriate remedy to challenge the same. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib