Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Shanti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:1920
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
WPS No. 214 of 2025
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
1 - Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Kuswa Ram Kumhar Aged About 72 Years R/o
Village Post- Barpali Kalan Block And District- Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Pil Lal Bareth S/o Buddhu Ram Bareth Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Post Barpali Kalan Block And District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public
Works, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan,
North Block, New Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)
3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Zone, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Public Works
Department Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Champa Division,
District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy.
Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
13/01/2025
1. Heard.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following reliefs:
"10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to call
for the entire record pertaining to the case of the
petitioner.
10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the Respondent authority to give benefit of leave
encashment within stipulated time to the petitioner with
interest, in the interest of justice.
10.3 And any other relief, which the court deems fit and
proper.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 were working their duty with
utmost, sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors. The
petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed in the year 1978 as daily
wage employee and thereafter he has given appointment on work-
charge to the post of "unskilled labour" in respondent department
and due to superannuation, he was retired from service in the
year 2012 after regularization in such department, she has given
all the retiral dues except amount of leave encashment and the
father of the Petitioner No. 2 namely late. Buddhuram was initially
appointed in the respondent depertment in 01.12.1978 as daily
wage employee and thereafter he has given appointment on work-
charge to the post of "unskilled labour" in respondent department
and due to superannuation, he was retired from service on
31.03.2012 after regularization in such department, he has given
all the retiral dues except amount of leave encashment. They
were never communicated any adverse remarks in their entire
service period and till superannuation period his length of service
period has more than 34 years. They 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
