1 2025:CGHC:3045 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 395 of 2025 • Sarveshwar Majumadar S/o Late Arvindra Majumadar Aged About 66 Years Retired Wire Man, Posted At Office Of S.D.O. (E And M) Public Work Department Sub Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur, C.G., R/o Nutan Chowk, New Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan Sector 19 North Block Atal Nagar New Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur, C.G. 4. Executive Engineer, (E And M) Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur, C.G. 5. Joint Director Pension And Account Treasury Department Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nilu Kumari Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. A.G. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/01/2025 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 allow the writ petition and be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner's matter. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is retired employee of the respondent department, who was working as wireman in the Public Works 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 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