Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9757 (CHH)

BALBHADRA SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/1329/2025 · 2025-02-20

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:8991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1329 of 2025 1 - Balbhadra Sahu S/o Shri Bramha Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Gram Bade Temri Post Safra Tahsil Pithaura District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Bisoha Ram Sahu S/o Nohar Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Gram And Post Moring Thana Tumgaon Tahsil And District – Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Sant Bai Ghritlahre W/o Late Shri Dukalu Ram Ghritlahre Aged About 61 Years R/o Gram Darra Post Kasdol Tahsil Kasdol District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Water Resource Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Finance Department Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Department Shivnath Bhawan North Block Sector -19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Department Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - District Treasury Officer Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.25 18:07:41 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 20.02.2025 1 Heard Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 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 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 judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in Faguvaram Patel & others v. State of C.G. in WPS NO.3870/2021. 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.” 3 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.1 and 2 are the original retired employees and petitioner No.3 is wife of the retired employee, who were worked under the respondent department as Work-charged/Contingency Paid employees and whose services have been later regularized under the respondent authorities. 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. 4 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. 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 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 4 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 writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh