1 2026:CGHC:26101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8280 of 2023 1 - Meghnath Singhor S/o Late Shri Gaj Lal Singhor, Aged About 62 Years R/o Motipur, Post Sankra, Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Land Record Section, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Sarveshwar Narendra Bhure, The Collector, Land Record Section, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate For State/Resp. Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. GA and Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL, with Mr. Kirodi Mal Agrawal, Officer-In-Charge. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 25/06/2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the India seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.06.27 10:41:49 +0530 2 pleased to call for the entire records pertaining the concerning matter. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.02/03 to release the DPF, GIS and Leave encashment amount for which the petitioner is entitled along with @ 18% p.a. penal interest and appropriate compensation, etc. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as deem fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari in the year 1983. Subsequently, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 1988”), and consequently, his service was terminated on 09.02.2007. She further submits that despite such termination, the amounts payable towards DPF, GIS and leave encashment have not been released to him. Hence, learned counsel prays that the reliefs sought in instant petition be granted to the petitioner. 3. Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State have filed their reply stating therein that an amount of Rs.1,79,136/- has already been paid to the petitioner towards DPF vide Annexure R-1 dated 03.12.2024. Likewise, an amount of Rs.18,249/- has been paid to him under the GIS vide Annexure R-2 dated 13.11.2025. He further submits that since the petitioner was terminated from his service on account of his conviction 3 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988, he is not entitled to get leave encashment as per Rule 9(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2010”), hence, the present petition liable to be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is evident from Annexure R-1 that the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.1,79,136/- towards DPF and, vide Annexure R-2, an amount of Rs.18,249/- under the head of Group Insurance Scheme, 1985. Since the petitioner was terminated from his service on account of his conviction under the Act, 1988, he is not entitled to commute his leave for leave encashment in view of Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 2010. 6. Though, vide communication (Annexure D-1) dated 26.07.2023 and the calculation sheet annexed thereto, the amount payable towards DPF calculated as 6,56,481/-, but the said communication cannot be treated as a final determination of the petitioner’s entitlement, as it was only departmental reference/proposal. Moreover, the calculation sheet reflects computation of DPF from the financial year 1983-1984 up to 2021-2022, whereas the petitioner stood terminated from service in the year 2007. In this regard, Shri Kirodi Mal Agrawal, Officer-In-Charge of the Case, submitted that the said calculation sheet annexed with Annexure D-1 was inadvertently prepared by the clerical staff of the office of the Joint Collector. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Treasury, which recalculated the amount and determined that the sum of Rs.1,79,136/- only payable to the petitioner under the head of DPF. 4 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the amount of Rs.1,79,136/- paid to the petitioner under the head of DPF cannot be said to be inadequate. The petitioner has also failed to substantiate his claim for a higher amount by producing any cogent material or documentary evidence. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to admit the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at motion stage. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar