1 2025:CGHC:4393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 677 of 2025 • Udaynath Thakur S/o Shri Ladar Thakur Aged About 66 Years Occupation- Retd. Helper Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur Distt.- Baster (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur, Distt.- Baster, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Jagdalpur, Distt.- Baster (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 24/01/2025 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 Call for the entire record relates to petitioner for kind perusal of Hon'ble court. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondents to release the amount of leave encashment forthwith, with appropriate rate of interest. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners claim in light of the Circulars as well as decision of this Honble court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is retired employee of the respondent department, who was working as worked charge and contingency paid employee. 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 (Supra), 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