1 2025:CGHC:1931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 240 of 2025 • Somaru Ram S/o Ramu Aged About 74 Years R/o House No. 576 Ward No. 11 District - Dantewada (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department Naya Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.). 3. Chief Engineer Mahanadi Pariyojna Water Resource Department Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 4. Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.). 5. Superintendent Engineer Indrawati Pariyojna Zone Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.). 6. Executive Engineer Water Resource Department Division South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 7. S.D.O. Water Resource Department Sub Division South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL. 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 To issue an appropriate writ or order to direct the respondent's authority to grant the benefits of leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances including award of cost of the petition may also be granted. An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is retired employee of the respondent department, who was working as Chowkidar 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 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 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