-1- 2025:CGHC:39821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7014 of 2021 Bharat Bhushan Shukla S/o Late Shri Gendlal Shukla Aged About 66 Years Post Pendari, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Forest Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Chief Conservator Of Forest Chhattisgarh Jail Road, Aranya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petition by quashing theorders dated 18/8/2018 (Collectively filed as Annexure P-2), deciding the total pension as well as other dues by including more than 7 years of the service of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 28/7/2021 made by the petitioner, within a stipulated time frame and as per the notification rolled out by the Government of C.G (Annexure P-4). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may pass any order in the interest of justice in favor of the Petitioner and against the respondents.” 2) Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his submissions to relief No. 10.2 and submit that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated employee in the month of May, 1983, and his services were regularized on 23.07.1990. He would further submit that, after the petitioner’s retirement, the department assessed the amount of leave encashment but did not take into consideration the period from May 1983 till 23.07.1990. He submits that such period ought to have been considered while assessing the leave encashment. He would contend that a representation was made by the petitioner on 28.07.2021 before respondent No. 2, which is still pending consideration; thus, he prays that respondent No. 2 may be directed to consider and decide the said representation expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 1990, and accordingly, the amount of leave encashment has rightly been assessed by the department. It is further submitted that in the year 1989, the petitioner was holding a temporary post, and his services were regularized only on 23.07.1990; thus, there is no illegality on the part of the department. -3- 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation dated 28.07.2021 made by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6) With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim