1 2025:CGHC:6824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1073 of 2025 1 - Ramu Panka S/o Shri Tularam Panka Aged About 62 Years R/o Tularam 867, Bharat Mata Chowk, Ram Mandir Shanti Nagar, Ekta Hospital, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt Geeta Bai Sonwani W/o Late Shri Neelkanth Sonwani Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No.67, Behind Kali Murti, Near Kali Mandir, Shivnagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Smt Jhime Bai Panka W/o Late Shri Ram Lal Panka Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kundrapara, Bharat Mata Chowk, Near Manohar Shop Shanti Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Bhagwani Ram Nishad S/o Jagdish Ram Nishad Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Umariya, Post Aricha Thana Mandir Hasoud, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Suryabhan Singh Kshatri S/o Shri Shital Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Behind Sub Treasury Office, Bhatapara, Tahsil And Police Station Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Raipur, Division District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Raipur Division, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer E And Ms/o Jagdish Ram Nishad, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Village Umariya, Post Aricha Thana Mandir Hasoud, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rustam Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer SHAYNA KADRI Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Rustam Sahu, learned counsel petitioners as well as Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of leave encashment of 120 days as per the order dated 30/09/2022 and 25/01/2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court in identical case bearing W.P.(S.) No. 3870/2021 and 440/2024 in favour of the petitioners with interest from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.2 That any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working as Class – IV employee under the respondent No. 1 department and subsequently petitioners were regularizes and upon completion of age of superannuation they retired from serivce. During their service, the Petitioners have performed their duties and obligations bestowed upon them with utmost sincerity and to the best of their capabilities with an unblemished service record. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & 3 Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022, the petitioners are entitled for leave encashment. 4. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioner 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 6. 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 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 claims 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. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna