1 2025:CGHC:45944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10410 of 2025 • Vijay Shankar Chandrakar S/o Late Ludaru Ram Aged About 63 Years Retired- Assistant Grade- Ii, R/o Ward No. 3, Dangadikra Bagbahra Tahsil And P.S. Bagbara District- Mahasamund ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Urban Administration And Development And Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 2. Director Urban Administration And Development And Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 3. Collector District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund. ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Tawadkar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 2 09/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus and certiorari and for other suitable writs and directions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the order dated 6-5-2024 passed by this Court in WPS No. 2622 of 2025 and 2627 of 2024, therefore, similar order can be passed in the present case also. 3. Petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Grade II in Municipal Council Bagbahara , District Mahasamund stood retired on 30-9-2024 and his leave encashment has not been released to him by the respondent No.2 after lapse of 11 months and 15 days. 4. After lapse of 11 months and 15 days leave encashment of the petitioner has not been paid to him though sanctioned which shows the consideration of the respondent authorities with regard to low paid employees which this Court deprecated excuse of the authority. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that there is financial crisis, therefore, they are unable to pay the leave encashment within the stipulated time period and would further submit that they will release the leave encashment within two months. 6. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the corporation is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that since 11 months and 15 days the petitioner has to run pillar to post to get his leave encashment amount and would submit that penal re-provisions may also be invoked by this court by imposing interest on delayed payment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the submission and fact that though the leave encashment amount sanctioned, the same has not been paid to the petitioner for the last 11 months and 15 days, though this is a fit case where penal interest can be imposed, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the respondent authority is having some financial crisis, no penal interest is imposed, but it is 3 directed that within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, leave encashment amount shall be released to the petitioner without any delay. 9. It is made clear that if the respondent authority fails to comply with the order, then it will be viewed seriously by this court. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition (s) is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.09.10 11:09:22 +0530