1 2025:CGHC:2645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 338 of 2025 • Om Prakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Tiju Ram Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Kosmanda, Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Engineer Hasdeo Basin, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Executive Engineer Maniyari Water Resource Division Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 5. Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to give benefit of leave encashment within stipulated time to the petitioner with interest, in the interest of the justice. 10.3 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner is retired employee of the respondent department, who was working as Jal Wahak 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 3 encashment. 3. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents has not been filed by the petitioner and it is also not reflected as to whether the father of 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