Chattisgarh High Court
Munni Bai Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:3049
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI WPS No. 448 of 2025
1 - Munni Bai Sharma W/o Late Ramjivan Sharma Aged About 70 Years
R/o Mohbattha Road, Bramhin Para Bemetara, Ward No. 6 Bemetara,
District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt Shankuntala Sharma W/o Late Damodar Prasad Sharma Aged
About 67 Years R/o Durg Road Near Mandi, Ward No. 14 Bemetara,
District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt Chandrakala Manikpuri W/o Late Vivek Das Manikpuri Aged
About 70 Years R/o Nayapara, Ward No. 12, Bemetara, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt Janki Bai Sahu W/o Late Sukhi Ram Sahu Aged About 67 Years
R/o 145, Ba.Ha. School Road, Brahamin Para, Ward No. 4, Bemetara,
District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
5 - Ganjan Ram Yadav S/o Rameshar Rawat Aged About 66 Years R/o
House No. 119, Gordhikala Post Kourakapa, Tahsil Nawagarh, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Raipur Division
2
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Bemetara
Division, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, 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 Ms. Khushbu Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as Mr. Suyadhdhar Badgaiya, learned Dy. Government
Advocate 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 and relevant documents 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 pleased to
issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the
respondent authorities to grant the benefits of leave
encashment of 120 days as per the order dated
30.09.2022 and 25.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble
Court in identical case bearing W.P.(S) No. 3870/2021
and 440/2024 in favour of the petitioners with interest
from the date of entitlement to its actual payment.
10.2 That any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by
this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be provided in
favour of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective
petitioners were working as Class - IV employee under the
respondent No.1 department and subsequently the petitioners
were regularized and upon completion of 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 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.
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
