Disposed¶29

Geeta Prasad Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jan 2025WPS/807/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave encashment; retired Watchman, Water Resources Department, Chhattisgarh; Geeta Prasad Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh; Faguvaram Patel & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 3870 of 2021, decided 30.09.2022; similarly situated persons; representation within 30 days; decision within 90 days; disposed of without commenting on merits; minimum qualifying service; interest on leave encashment; pensionary benefits; WPS No. 807 of 2025; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted on merits; petitioner granted liberty to file a detailed representation with supporting documents within 30 days, and respondents directed to decide his leave encashment claim in light of Faguvaram Patel (supra) expeditiously, preferably within 90 days, if he is verified as similarly situated. ¶29

Geeta Prasad Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment (with interest) in respect of his father, a retired Watchman of the Water Resources Department, in light of the judgment in Faguvaram Patel (W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021). +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

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 a copy of the order.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

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

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 807 of 2025, decided 29/01/2025 (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.): Writ petition by the son of a retired Watchman of the Water Resources Department seeking leave encashment with interest on the strength of this Court's judgment in Writ Petition (S) No. 3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), decided 30.09.2022. The State objected that sufficient documents were not filed and that completion of the minimum qualifying service by the petitioner's father was not reflected. Without commenting on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file a detailed representation with documents within 30 days; on due verification, if the petitioner is found similarly situated as in Faguvaram Patel (supra), the respondents are to decide his claim in light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within 90 days of submission of the representation.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:5169

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 807 of 2025

¶7

Geeta Prasad Mishra S/o Late Ram Lal Mishra Aged About 54 Years R/o Mudakuanpara Rampur Rampur District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Water Resource Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.).

¶10

2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resource Development Sihawa Bhawan - New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

3 - Chief Engineer Department Of Water Resources Hasdeo Kachhar - Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶12

4 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶13

5 - Executive Engineer Electrical Mechincs Division Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.).

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

29/01/2025

¶20

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶22

10.2 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authority to give benefit of leave encashment within stipulated time to the petitioner with interest, in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.3 And any other relief, which the court deems fit and proper.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner is retired employee of the respondent department, who was working as Watch Man in the Water Resources Department. He further 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 petitioner is entitled for leave encashment.

¶25

¶26

Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents has not been filed by the petitioner and it is also not reflected as to whether the father of the petitioner has completed the minimum period of the service to avail the benefit of leave encashment.

¶27

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

¶28

Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this 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 person, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (Supra), 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.

¶29

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/-

¶30

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶31

Raghu Jat

Geeta Prasad Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Prasad Mishra 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhe Krishna Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narsingh Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Milan Ram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Khatkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akash Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baijnath Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh