Disposed¶33

Vijay Lal Janghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2025WPS/144/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave encashment; retirement dues; work-charged employee; contingency paid employee; regularization; interest @ 12% per annum on unpaid leave encashment; minimum period of service; representation to competent authority; Faguvaram Patel; Writ Petition (S) No. 3870 of 2021 decided 30.09.2022; State of Chhattisgarh; Public Health Engineering Bemetara/Durg; disposed of with directions; WPS No. 144 of 2025; 2025:CGHC:3557; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a detailed representation with documents within 30 days, and direction that if found similarly situated as in Faguvaram Patel (supra), the respondents shall decide his claim in light of that judgment preferably within 90 days. ¶33

Vijay Lal Janghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted the unpaid amount of leave encashment as per the rules, with consequential reliefs. +2 more

¶25

Court's answer

If, on due verification, the petitioner is found to be similarly situated as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), his claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of the Faguvaram Patel judgment, expeditiously and preferably within 90 days from submission of the representation.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to make a detailed representation, with all necessary documents, before the concerned respondent/competent authority within 30 days of receipt of the order.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPS No. 144 of 2025 (order on board 21.01.2025; single judge, Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad). Vijay Lal Janghel, a retired work-charged/contingency-paid employee of the Public Health Engineering department whose services were later regularized, prayed for unpaid leave encashment per the rules with consequential reliefs and interest @ 12% per annum since retirement, relying on this Court's judgment in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., decided 30.09.2022). The State contended that sufficient documents were not filed and minimum qualifying service was not reflected. Without commenting on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition: liberty to file a detailed representation with all necessary documents within 30 days; and if, on due verification, the petitioner is found similarly situated as in Faguvaram Patel (supra), the respondents to decide his claim in light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within 90 days of submission.

¶1

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.01.23 17:43:48 +0530

2025:CGHC:3557

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 144 of 2025

¶7

Vijay Lal Janghel S/o Tirath Ram Aged About 68 Years R/o Ward 13, Durga Nagar, Ghourabhata Nagar Panchayat Parpodi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - E.N.C. Of Public Health Engineering Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Chief Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Circle Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Superintendent Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Division Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pensions - Durg Division, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶16

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastasva, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L.

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

21.01.2025

¶23

Heard Mr. Anshuman Shrivastasva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents.

¶24

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶25

10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to direct the respondents to grant the unpaid amount of leave encashment as per the rules and grant consequential reliefs thereof.

¶26

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to direct the respondents to grant interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of leave encashment which remained unpaid since the date of retirement of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is retired employee of the respondent department, who was worked as worked charged/Contingency Paid employees and whose services has been later regularized under the respondent authorities. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021

¶28

¶29

(Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022 , the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment.

¶30

Learned State counsel submits 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 period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record.

¶32

Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner 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 his claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (surpa), his 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 the said representation.

¶33

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶34

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶35

Yogesh

Vijay Lal Janghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Lal Janghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vinishita Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ratna Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tulsidas Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayanarayan Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devidas Rajurkar Vs Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation