Chattisgarh High Court
Bisal Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:2708
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAVI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
WPS No. 403 of 2025
1 - Bisal Ram Sahu S/o Late Dasru Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years
R/o Village- Rudri Basti, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Miludas Manikpuri S/o Late Sunder Das Manikpuri Aged About 64
Years R/o Village- Rudri Basti, Ward No. 38, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Mangipudi Sangameswar Rao S/o Late Mangipudi Parvateesam
Rao Aged About 74 Years R/o Village- Rudri Colony, Post- Rudri, Tahsil
And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Jainti Bai W/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Rudri
Ward No. 38, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Keju Ram Yadav W/o Late Bashakhu Ram Yadav Aged About 66
Years R/o Village- Rudri Basti, Post- Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resource, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Executive Engineer Water Management Division, Rudri, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
2
3 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department Dhamtari,
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
16/01/2025
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Ms. Nupur Trivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for
the State/respondent/s.
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 reliefs:
"10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate write, thereby directing the
respondent authorities to grant the benefits of leave
encashment of 120 days as per the orders dated
12.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court in identical
case. Bearing Writ Petition (S) No 4729/2024 and other
connected writ petition in favour of petitioners, with
interest from the date of entitlement to its actual
payment.
10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and
just in the facts and circumstances of the case including
award of the costs of the petition may be given."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners/husband of petitioners were working as Class IV
employee under the respondent No.1 department and
subsequently they were regularized and upon completion age of
superannuation, they retired from service. After superannuation,
the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of 120 days leave
encashment, but the said benefits have not been extended in
favor of petitioners, in an illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory
manner. In identical matter bearing Writ petition (S) No. Writ
Petition (S) No. 4729/2024 and other connected writ petition, the
Hon'ble Court has passed order on 12.08.2024 and the case of
petitioners are also identical to the said order. The petitioners
have prayed for grant of benefits of leave encashment, but till date
the same has not been considered by the respondent authority
concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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.
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
