Chattisgarh High Court
Bisahat Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:1654
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 174 of 2025
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
1 - Bisahat Ram Sahu S/o Chain Singh Sahu Aged About 74 Years
Retired Sthal Sahayak, Public Works Department, Division Balod,
(C.G.) R/o Village And Post- Deori Bangala, Distt.- Balod (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Suraj Verma W/o Late Jagdish Prasad Verma Aged About 72
Years (Husband Of The Petitioner Was Retired Sthal Sahayak, Public
Works Department, Division- Bemetara), (C.G.) R/o Village And Post-
Koliya, Ward No. 3, Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)
3 - Smt. Shanti Bhatt W/o Late Chhannu Lal Bhatt Aged About 68 Years
Husband Of The Petitioner Was Retired Sthal Sahayak, Public Works
Department, Division- Balod, (C.G.) R/o Deori Bangala, Distt.- Balod
(C.G.)
4 - Smt. Maya Devi Sahu W/o Late Bhupat Lal Sonwani Aged About 57
Years Husband Of The Petitioner Was Sthal Sahayak, Work Charged,
Public Works Department, Division- Balod, (C.G.) R/o Balod, Distt.-
Balod (C.G.)
5 - Smt. Sugrotin Bai Thakur W/o Late Tejram Thakur Aged About 50
Years Husband Of The Petitioner Was Chowkidar Workcharged, Public
Works Department, Division- Balod, (C.G.) R/o Balod, Distt.- Balod,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2
2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhwan, Sector-
19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division- Bemetara,
Distt.- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division- Balod,
Distt.- Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
10/01/2025
1. Heard.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following reliefs:
"10.1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order
and direct the respondents to grant leave encashment
and surrender leave to the petitioners with interest in
view of the order dated 30.09.2022 in WPS no.
3870/2021 Faguvaram Patel & ors. Vs State of CG &
ors).
10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
No.1 was initially appointed/engaged on 12.03.1973, retired on
28.02.2010, the husband of the petitioner No.2 was
appointed/engaged on 13.05.1975 and retired on 30.04.2008 and
died on 09.05.2014, husband of the petitioner No.3 was initially
appointed/engaged on 22.08.1973 and worked upto 20.12.2011
and died on 20.12.2011 during service, husband of the petitioner
No.4 was initially appointed on 31.01.1997 and worked upto
18.04.2000 and during service he died on 18.04.2000, husband of
petitioner No.5 was initially appointed on 16.11.1989 worked up to
05.01.1997 and during service he died on 05.01.1997. As such
the petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2, 3, 4 and 5
were worked as work charged/ contingency paid employees in the
respondents department 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
