1 2025:CGHC:3049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 448 of 2025 1 - Munni Bai Sharma W/o Late Ramjivan Sharma Aged About 70 Years R/o Mohbattha Road, Bramhin Para Bemetara, Ward No. 6 Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt Shankuntala Sharma W/o Late Damodar Prasad Sharma Aged About 67 Years R/o Durg Road Near Mandi, Ward No. 14 Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt Chandrakala Manikpuri W/o Late Vivek Das Manikpuri Aged About 70 Years R/o Nayapara, Ward No. 12, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt Janki Bai Sahu W/o Late Sukhi Ram Sahu Aged About 67 Years R/o 145, Ba.Ha. School Road, Brahamin Para, Ward No. 4, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 5 - Ganjan Ram Yadav S/o Rameshar Rawat Aged About 66 Years R/o House No. 119, Gordhikala Post Kourakapa, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Raipur Division Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Bemetara Division, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyadhdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. Heard Ms. Khushbu Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Suyadhdhar Badgaiya, learned Dy. Government Advocate 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 and relevant documents 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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of leave encashment of 120 days as per the order dated 30.09.2022 and 25.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Court in identical case bearing W.P.(S) No. 3870/2021 and 440/2024 in favour of the petitioners with interest from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 3 10.2 That any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective petitioners were working as Class – IV employee under the respondent No.1 department and subsequently the petitioners were regularized and upon completion of 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 favour of the petitioners, in illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 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 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 4 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