Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Girja Bai Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 February, 2025
1
Digitally
2025:CGHC:7440
signed by
RAVI
RAVI SHANKAR
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
2025.02.17
19:36:12
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1143 of 2025
1 - Smt. Girja Bai Sahu W/o Shobha Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years
R/o Mokhla Ranandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Lalit Kumar Tripathi S/o Chandra Shekhar Tripathi Aged About 70
Years House No. 555/3, Word No. 03, Behind Deshmuckh Hotel,
Pyarelal Chowk, Chikhli, Rajandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chandulal Yadav S/o- Kartik Yadav Aged About 62 Years Joratari
Kanketara, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Shobha Ram Sahu S/o Kripa Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o
Mokhla, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Bhal Ram Lodhi S/o Bhav Singh Verma Aged About 62 Years R/o-
House No. 169, Dumardih Khurd Post, Khairjhiti, Rajnandgaon, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Raj Kumar Verma S/o Bhuneshwar Verma Aged About 62 Years R/o-
House No. 77, Ward No. 11, Rengakathera, Rajnandgaon, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Public Works Department,
Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ).
2
2 - Joint Director Treasury And Pension Directorate, Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Enginner In Chief Public Works Department, Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Durg, District- Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
5 - Superintendent Engineer Works Department, Durg District- Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
6 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon,
District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Sub Divisional Officer, Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Singh, GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
12/02/2025
1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, learned counsel petitioner as well
as Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for
State/respondents.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following reliefs:
"10.1. That, the records pertaining to the cases of the
petitioners may be kindly called for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the
respondent authorities to release the leave
encashment benefits to petitioners account with
applicable interest, in the interest of justice.
10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court
may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective
petitioners were initially appointed on temporary basis, on the
posts of Time Keeper, Gangman, Permanent Labour under the
Public Works Department. The petitioners were employed
continuously by the respondents without break, as their services
were continued by the respondents every year or in several years
up till the regularisation of petitioners within the permanent
establishment. The petitioners were appointed initially during year
1984 onwards, also their services continued on yearly basis
without any break. As per the Chhattisgarh Work Charged And
Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977, petitioners are
entitled for benefits of leave encashment, as there is no
prohibition in release of leave encashment amounts to petitioners
under the Rules, therefore, 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.
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
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.
7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observations and directions.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
