Chattisgarh High Court
Mangiya Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:6215
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
RAVI SHANKAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
2025.02.17
19:33:04
+0530
WPS No. 980 of 2025
1 - Mangiya Ram S/o Sundar Singh Aged About 69 Years Retired
Labour, R/o Village And Post Saamtara, Tehsil Narharpur, District
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Bhagwan Patel S/o Bhaiya Ram Patel Aged About 69 Years Retired
Labour, R/o Village Deklawan, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Late Makhan Ram Shinde Aged About 56 Years
R/o Village Dudhawa, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Smt. Sonbati Bai W/o Late Soapsingh Yadav Aged About 65 Years
R/o Village Devdonggar, Post Saamtara, Tehsil Narharpur, District
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Smt. Sona Bai Shinde W/o Late Buddhu Ram Shinde Aged About 61
Years R/o Village Dudhawa, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh.
6 - Kuber Singh S/o Ayatu Ram Aged About 66 Years Retired Labour,
R/o Village Sawtara, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department Sector- 9, Atal Nagar,
2
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojna Department Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Executive Engineer Water Management Division Rudri Code No. 38
Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Sub Divisional Officer Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojna, Sub Division
Dudhawa, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Senior District Treasury Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
04/02/2025
1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel petitioner as well
as Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for
State/respondents.
2. Since the matter is heard and decided finally, therefore, I.A.
No.01/2025, which is an application for exemption from filing
typed copy is allowed.
3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following relief/s:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue the direction for the respondent authorities to
grant the benefit of leave encashment."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective
petitioners were engaged as Gangman in respondents'
department, their salary was charge in project, they were granted
salary on monthly basis since initial dated of appointmnet under
the worked as work charged/ contingency paid employees,
therefore, the petitioners are entitiled for retire benefit, leave
credited in the account of the work charged / contingency paid
employees deserved to get encashment. Learned counsel for the
petitioners 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 petitioners are
entitled for leave encashment.
5. 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.
6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
documents available in record.
7. 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 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 their
said representation.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observations and directions.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
