1 2025:CGHC:6921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1055 of 2025 1 - Smt. V. Pramila Rao W/o Lt. Shri Durga Prasad Rao Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Subhash Nagar, Near Bsnl Tower Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Smt. Lachchhani Bai Nishad W/o Lt. Shri Rambhagat Nishad Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Nayapara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dhannu Ram Sahu S/o Shri R. R. Sahu Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shahid Veer Singh Para, Tumgaon, Post, Thana Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Johan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Kejau Ram Sahu Aged About 69 Years R/o Gram Achola, Post Bhoring, Thana Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - G.R. Sahu S/o S.R. Sahu Aged About 78 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Infront Of Hanuman Mandir, Mahasamund, Thana And Tahsil Mahasamund District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary- Finance Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.07 17:43:46 +0530 2 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - District Treasury Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.02.2025 1 Heard Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.S. Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing I.A. No.1, application for exemption from filing typed copy of the documents as he has filed typed and legible copies of the documents. 3 In view of the above, I.A. No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 4 By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to call for the entire record for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the leave encashment amount to the petitioners, in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in WPS No.3870 of 2021 Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 3 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that husbands of the petitioners No.1 and 2 as well as petitioners No.3 to 5 themselves are retired employees of the respondent department, who was worked charged employees working under the respondent department. He 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. 6 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. 7 I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 8 Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representations 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 4 judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra) expeditiously preferably within the period of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of the said representation. 9 Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh