Chattisgarh High Court
Kashinath Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:3056
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR WPS No. 442 of 2025
MANDAVI
1 - Kashinath Tiwari S/o Late Jagdamba Tiwari Aged About 67 Years
Retired Sthal Sahayak At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department
Jashpur, Division Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh R/o Darbaritoli,
Ward No. 12 Jashpur, P/s Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
2 - Hari Kumar Sinha S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Sinha Aged About 70
Years Retired Sthal Shayak At Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department Jashpur, Division Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
R/o Village - Mishra-Tola, Tahsil Aara, District Bhojpur Bihar
3 - Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Late Raj Kishore Singh Aged About 62 Years
Retired Sthal Shayak At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department
Jashpur, Division Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh R/o House No.
18, Housing Board Colony, Jashpur, P/s. Jashpur, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of
Public Works, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan,
North Block, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bilaspur Zone, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Jashpur, Division
2
Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
5 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Ambikapur, District
Surguja Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhu Lal, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyadhdhar Badgaiya, Dy.
Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
17/01/2025
1. Heard Mr. Prabhu Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as Mr. Suyadhdhar Badgaiya, learned Dy. Government Advocate
for the State/respondent/s.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following reliefs:
"10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of
the petitioners.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondents authorities to give benefit of
leave encashment within stipulated time to the
petitioners, in the interest of the justice.
10.3 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court
may deemed fit and proper also be granted to the
petitioners, in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
were initially appointed on the different posts in respondent
department in the year 1989 to 1992 and due to superannuation
they were retired from service in the year 2016 to 2024, they have
given all retiral dues except amount of leave encashment. After
appointment of the petitioners, they working their duty with utmost
honesty, sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors. They
were never communicated any adverse remarks in their entire
service period and till superannuation period his length of service
period had very long. As the petitioners are entitled to get the
benefits of 120 days leave encashment but the said benefits have
not been extended in favour of the petitioners, in illegal, arbitrary
and discriminatory manner. 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.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
documents available in record.
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observations and directions.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
