Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2645 (CHH)

PURAN PRASAD DUBEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/367/2025 · 2025-01-16

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:2648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 367 of 2025 1. Puran Prasad Dubey S/o Khamhan Prasad Dubey Aged About 75 Years Retired Stahl Sahayak, Water Resources Department, Kharkhara Mohadipar Pariyojna, Division Balod Chhattisgarh R/o Village And Post Deori Bangala, Choukhadiya Para, Ward No. 20, Balod, Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh. 2. Anirudha Kumar Nishad S/o Shambhu Ram Nishad Aged About 73 Years Retired Stahl Sahayak, Water Resources Department, Kharkhara Mohadipar Pariyojna, Division Balod Chhattisgarh R/o Village Jhitiya And Post - Faradpur, Distt. - Balod Chhattisgarh. 3. Baliram Sahu S/o Amar Singh Sahu Aged About 71 Years Work Charged Retired Chowkidar, Office Of Executive Engineer (M.L/m) Nalkoop And Gate Division, Water Resources Department, Division Durg Chhattisgarh R/o Ganesh Khapari, Post - Mahrum, Tehsil - Dondilohara, Distt. - Balod Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Neer Bai W/o Late Tijuram Bhu Arya Aged About 55 Years Husband Of The Petitioner Was Chowkidar, Water Resources Department, Division - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh R/o And Post - Balod, Distt. - Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhwan, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Division - Balod, Distt. - Balod Chhattisgarh. 4. Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Division - Gariyaband, Distt. - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 5. Executive Engineer (M.L/m) Water Resources Department, Vidyut/ Yantriki, Nalkoop Evam Gate Division - Durg, Distt. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Neelima Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to grant leave encashment and surrender leave to the petitioners with interest in view of the order dated 30.09.2022 in 3 WPS no. 3870/2021 Faguvaram Patel & ors. Vs State of CG & ors). 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1, 2, 3 and husband of the petitioner No. 4 are retired employees of the respondent department, who were working as Sthal Sahayak, Sthal Sahayak, Work Charged & Chowkidar respectively in the Water Resources Department. He further 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 petitioners are entitled for leave encashment. 3. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 and husband of the petitioner No. 4 have completed the minimum period of the service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 5. 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 / 4 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 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. 6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat