Chattisgarh High Court
Chamru Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:27301
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5815 of 2025
1 - Chamru Ram S/o Sonuram Aged About 64 Years R/o Kamaras Jagargunda,
District Sukuma (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Chief Engineer (Administration) Public Works Department, District
Raipur (C.G.)
4 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa), Jagdalpur, District
Bastar (C.G.)
5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) Jagdalpur,
District Bastar (C.G.)
6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) Sukuma Division,
District Sukuma (C.G.)
7 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bastar Division
Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.06.25
14:35:55
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
24/06/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter pertains to
Sukuma district and he has correctly mentioned the name of district in the
writ petition as District Sukuma, and there is no default in the matter.
2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
default pointed out by the Registry is waived.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired
employee of the respondents' Departments and was working as Work
Charged Contingency paid employee. It is further submitted that in light of
judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram
Patel and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other
connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022, present petitioner is also
entitled for leave encashment.
4. Learned State counsel would submit that sufficient documents have not
been filed by the petitioner, and it is also not reflected as to whether the
petitioner has completed the minimum service to avail the benefit of leave
encashment.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on
record.
6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this
petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed
representation before the concerned respondents/competent authority
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order
with all necessary documents to substantiate his claim. In that event, on
due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person,
as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), his claim shall be decided by
the respondents in light of judgment passed in that case expeditiously
preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the
said representation.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observation and direction.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
