1 2025:CGHC:3565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 535 of 2025 Imran Khan S/o Jummanuddin Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o H- 30, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 31, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Department Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Water Resources Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Division Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Line Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue similar direction for grant of YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.23 16:59:37 +0530 2 leave encashment as per Annexure P-2 within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is son of deceased worked charged/Contingency Paid employee (Late Shri Jummanuddin Khan), who was working under the respondent authorities. He submits that identical issue came up for hearing before 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, wherein petitioners have raised identical issue which was allowed in their favour. He also submits that at this stage, petitioner may be permitted to submit representation in the light of Faguvaram Patel (supra) and respondents be directed to decide the representation to be submitted b the petitioner expeditiously within specified time. 4. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner is not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by the petitioner, at this stage, he is having no objection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 6. Taking into consideration,, without commenting anything on the merits, this writ 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 persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (surpa), his claim shall 3 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. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh