1 2025:CGHC:2409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 302 of 2025 Parasram S/o Late Shri Ragubir Aged About 63 Years R/o- Ward No. 4, Majhapara, Basti Baikunthpur, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Executive Engineer W.R.D. Division Baikunthpur, District- Koreia (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Khulesh Sahu, PL. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.01.15 19:58:26 +0530 2 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “(i)Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record in respect of amount of leave encashment. (ii)Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to pay the amount of leave encashment with 18% interest from the date of retirement to the petitioners. (iii)Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv)That the cost of the petition be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is retired employees of the respondent department, who was work charged employee working in Water Resource Department, Baikunthpur. 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. 3 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 writ 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 writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge gouri