1 2025:CGHC:2708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 403 of 2025 1 - Bisal Ram Sahu S/o Late Dasru Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Rudri Basti, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Miludas Manikpuri S/o Late Sunder Das Manikpuri Aged About 64 Years R/o Village- Rudri Basti, Ward No. 38, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mangipudi Sangameswar Rao S/o Late Mangipudi Parvateesam Rao Aged About 74 Years R/o Village- Rudri Colony, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jainti Bai W/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Rudri Ward No. 38, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Keju Ram Yadav W/o Late Bashakhu Ram Yadav Aged About 66 Years R/o Village- Rudri Basti, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer Water Management Division, Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 3 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Nupur Trivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. Since the matter is heard and decided finally, therefore, I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for exemption from filing typed copy is allowed. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate write, thereby directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of leave encashment of 120 days as per the orders dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court in identical case. Bearing Writ Petition (S) No 4729/2024 and other connected writ petition in favour of petitioners, with interest from the date of entitlement to its actual 3 payment. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/husband of petitioners were working as Class IV employee under the respondent No.1 department and subsequently they were regularized and upon completion age of superannuation, they retired from service. After superannuation, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of 120 days leave encashment, but the said benefits have not been extended in favor of petitioners, in an illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory manner. In identical matter bearing Writ petition (S) No. Writ Petition (S) No. 4729/2024 and other connected writ petition, the Hon'ble Court has passed order on 12.08.2024 and the case of petitioners are also identical to the said order. The petitioners have prayed for grant of benefits of leave encashment, but till date the same has not been considered by the respondent authority concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to 4 whether the petitioners have completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 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 petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners 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 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 their said representation. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi