1 2025:CGHC:3056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 442 of 2025 1 - Kashinath Tiwari S/o Late Jagdamba Tiwari Aged About 67 Years Retired Sthal Sahayak At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Jashpur, Division Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh R/o Darbaritoli, Ward No. 12 Jashpur, P/s Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Hari Kumar Sinha S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Sinha Aged About 70 Years Retired Sthal Shayak At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Jashpur, Division Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh R/o Village - Mishra-Tola, Tahsil Aara, District Bhojpur Bihar 3 - Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Late Raj Kishore Singh Aged About 62 Years Retired Sthal Shayak At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Jashpur, Division Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh R/o House No. 18, Housing Board Colony, Jashpur, P/s. Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bilaspur Zone, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Jashpur, Division Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhu Lal, 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 Mr. Prabhu Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Suyadhdhar Badgaiya, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to give benefit of leave encashment within stipulated time to the petitioners, in the interest of the justice. 10.3 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper also be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed on the different posts in respondent 3 department in the year 1989 to 1992 and due to superannuation they were retired from service in the year 2016 to 2024, they have given all retiral dues except amount of leave encashment. After appointment of the petitioners, they working their duty with utmost honesty, sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors. They were never communicated any adverse remarks in their entire service period and till superannuation period his length of service period had very long. As 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. 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 petitioners to make detailed representation before the concerned 4 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. 6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi