Chhattisgarh High Court
WPS/8420/2024 of G. SITARAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 20 December 2024
2024:CGHC:50299
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8407 of 2024 1 - T. Iranna @ Hiramani (Tipan Hiramani Reddy) W/o. T. Tulsaya Aged About 70 Years R/o. Bastapur Sahi, Vill. Chikarada, Distt. Ganjam (Odisha). --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary,
2024:CGHC:50299
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8407 of 2024
1 - T. Iranna @ Hiramani (Tipan Hiramani Reddy) W/o. T. Tulsaya AgedAbout 70 Years R/o. Bastapur Sahi, Vill. Chikarada, Distt. Ganjam (Odisha).
--- 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 (Adminstration) Public Works Department, District -Raipur(C.G.)4 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, (Bh/sa) North BastarDivisionNo.1,Jagdalpur,Distt.Bastar(C.G.)
5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, (Bh/sa) NorthBastar Division No. 2, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.)
6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, (Bh/sa) North BastarDivision No. 2, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.)
Page 1 of 4
WITH
WPS No. 8434 of 2024
1 - Libru S/o Suku Aged About 71 Years R/o Thanagudi Para VillageNeganar, District Bastar (C.G.)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Public WorksDepartment, Mahandi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)
2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Chief Engineer (Administration) Public Works Department, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)
4 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, (Bh/sa) North BastarDivision No. 2 Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) NorthBastar Division No. 2, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) North BastarDivision No. 2 Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
Page 2 of 4
WITH
WPS No. 8420 of 2024
1 - G. Sitaram S/o Nilkanth Rao Aged About 68 Years R/o 336 NankugaliTetarkhuti Guru Gobind Singh Ward No. 36 Jagdalpur Distt. BastarChhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health EngineeringDepartment, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Engineer (Vi/ya) Public Health Engineering Department,Division Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Engineer (Viya) Public Health EngineeringDepartment, Division Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer (Vi/ya) Public Health Engineering Department,Division Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh
Page 3 of 4
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyJudgment On Board 20/12/2024
1) Defect(s) pointed out by Registry are ignored.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are retiredemployees/ legal heirs of retired employees of the respondentdepartment, who were working as worked charged contingency paidemployee. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors.Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected mattersdecided on 30.09.2022, the petitioners are entitled for leaveencashment.employees/ legal heirs of retired employees of the respondentdepartment, who were working as worked charged contingency paidemployee. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors.Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected mattersdecided on 30.09.2022, the petitioners are entitled for leaveencashment.
3) Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have notbeen filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whetherthe petitioners have completed the minimum the service to avail thebenefit of leave encashment. been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whetherthe petitioners have completed the minimum the service to avail thebenefit of leave encashment.
4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documentsavailable in record. available in record.
5) Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, thesepetitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to makedetailed representation before the concerned respondent/competentauthority within the period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copyof this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim.In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if thepetitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case ofFaguvaram Patel (surpa), their claim shall be decided by therespondents in light of judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra)petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to makedetailed representation before the concerned respondent/competentauthority within the period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copyof this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim.In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if thepetitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case ofFaguvaram Patel (surpa), their claim shall be decided by therespondents in light of judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra)
expeditiously preferably within the period of ‘90 days’ from the date ofsubmission of the said representation.
6) Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)Judge
Ajinkya
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…