Chattisgarh High Court
Janmanjay vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2025
1
RAVI
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
2025:CGHC:9872
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
2025.02.28
16:38:17
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1466 of 2025
1 - Janmanjay S/o Shri Uday Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 3
Village Panchayat Dhouradarha P.S. And Tahsil Baramkela District -
Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Fathers Name Has Wrongly Been
Mentioned As Uderam In (Anne. P- 2 )
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thruogh The Secretary Public Works
Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur
District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Mantralaya
Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Division Bilaspur District -
Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Division Bilaspur
District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Sub Division
Sarangarh District - Raigarh Now District - Sarangarh -Bilaigarh (C.G.)
6 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Raigarh Division
Baramkela District - Raigarh Now District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.)
2
7 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur District -
Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
27/02/2025
1. Heard Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, learned counsel petitioner as well
as Ms. Poorva Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for
State/respondents.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:
"i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondents to comply the
order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S)
No. 3870/2021 with regard to leave encashment
and paid the said benefits with interest.
ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, may also be granted in favour of the
petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially appointed under the respondent authorities as contingency
unskilled labour on 01.04.1978 and thereafter the petitioner
services was regularized on 23.08.2008 as contingency unskilled
labour on regular pay scale at 2610-60-3150-65-3540/-. After the
appointment of the petitioner, he was working all along with
utmost honesty, sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors.
On being completing the length of service, the petitioner was
superannuated on 31.12.2024. The petitioner was the regular
employee under the respondents and after his superannuation,
the respondents have going to complete the formalities for paying
the pension and other service benefits but declined to pay the
leave encashment without any rhymes and reason. The petitioner
is also entitled for the Leave Encashment. The respondent
authorities have started paying pension to the petitioner and in
addition to this, the petitioner is also entitled for grant of Leave
Encashment but till date benefit of leave encashment has not
been extended to the petitioner. 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
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, this
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 this order with all necessary
documents to substantiate his 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), his 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, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observations and directions.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
