Sahudev Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3361 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sahudev Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 June, 2025

                                                           1




                                                                             2025:CGHC:28936

                                                                                          NAFR


                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                              WPS No. 6613 of 2025

              1 - Sahudev Netam S/o Late Cherkuram Netam Aged About 65 Years R/o
              Belgaon, Bakulbahi District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh
                                                                     --- Petitioner(s)

                                                       versus

              1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Executive Engineer Water
              Resource Department Mantralay Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
              Chhattisgarh

              2 - The Executive Engineer Water Resource Department, Divsion - Narayanpur,
              District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh

              3 - The Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Division - Jagdalpur
              District - Bastar Chhattisgarh
                                                                          ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Prapap, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

30/06/2025

1. 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 Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:

2025.07.01 19:50:41 +0530

connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022, present petitioner is also entitled for leave encashment.

2. 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.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

4. 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.

5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved