1 2025:CGHC:1925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 229 of 2025 • Ram Narayan Singh S/o Late Keshav Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Mahuapara, Fundudihari, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3. Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Mandal, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Engineer Hasdeo Ganga Kachar, Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5. Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Division No. 1, Ambikapur, Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide earned leave encashment of 180 days of service to the petitioner. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation dated 16.12.2024 (ANNEXURE P/1)made by the petitioner within stipulated period in accordance with law. 10.3. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is 3 retired employee of the respondent department, who was working as Field Helper in the Water Resource 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 petitioner is entitled for leave encashment. 3. 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 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 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 person, 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 4 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