Chattisgarh High Court
Uttara Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:6291
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
Digitally signed by
RAVI SHANKAR
MANDAVI
NAFR
Date: 2025.02.17
19:39:16 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 987 of 2025
1 - Uttara Bai W/o Late Vishwanath Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o
Ward No. 8, Sadak Para, Village Parsahi (Bana), Tehsil Akaltara, District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public
Health Engineering Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - E.N.C. Of Public Health Engineering Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).
3 - Chief Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Department Circle
Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.).
4 - Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department Division
Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.).
5 - Divisinal Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pensions - Surguja
Division, Ambilapur, District Surguja (C.G.).
6 - Treasury Officer, Treasury Accounts And Pensions - Jashpur District
Jashpur (C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Kawanljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
04/02/2025
1. Heard Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr.
Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel petitioner as well as Mr.
Kawanljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer for
State/respondents.
2. By way of ther writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:
"10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to direct
the respondents to grant the unpaid amount of leave
encashment as per the rules and grant consequential
reliefs thereof;
10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to direct
the respondents to grant interest @ 12% per annum
on the amount of leave encashment which remained
unpaid since the date of retirement of the petitioner;
10.3 Any other relief, which ther Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper according to the facts and
circumstances of the case along with the cost of the
petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's
husband initially started to work as Sahayak Handpump
Technician at Bilaspur on daily wages in the respondent
department. Subsequently the service of the petitioner's husband
was absorbed on the post of Sahayak Handpump Technician vide
order dated 13.08.1997 in the work charged / contingency paid
employee establishment and subsequently he was transferred to
the office of Executive Engineer, PHE Department and again was
transferred to the office of respondent No.4. Later on petitioner's
husband died on 11.06.2011 after completion of more than 13
years in service. Therefore, the petitioner was granted death-cum-
retiral dues and family pension. Despite repeated request the
respondent department has not released the due amount of leave
encashment which the retired work charged /contingency paid
employee is entitled as per the M.P./C.G. Work Charged /
Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977. He submits that
in the light of judgment passed by ther 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.
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 petitioner has 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, the
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 the order with all necessary
documents to substantiate her claim. In the event of filing of
representation, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be
similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel
(surpa), her claim 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, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observations and directions.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
