1 2025:CGHC:8537 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1315 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sita Sahu W/o Late Kailash Kumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 648 Rajendra Nagar Ward No. 15 Distt. Dantewada C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Chief Engineer (Administration) Public Works Department District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - The Chif Engineer Public Works Department Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G. 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) Division South Bastar Distt. South Bastar Dantewada C.G. 7 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bastar Division Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 To issue an appropriate writ or order to direct the respondent's authority to grant the benefits of leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances including award of cost of the petition may also be granted. An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of 3 the petitioner is retired employee of the respondent department, who was working as Chowkidar in the Public Works Department. 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 encashment. 3. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents has not been filed by the petitioner and it is also not reflected as to whether the husband of 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 4 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