2026:CGHC:8227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1761 of 2026

1 - Sudhram Yadav S/o Late Shri Dhirsay Yadav Aged About 63 Years Ex- Assistant Grade-02, Nagar Panchayat Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa C.G., R/o Village And Post- Haradi Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G.

... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur C.G.

2 - The Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan Directorate, New Raipur C.G.

3 - The Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development Regional Office Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G.

4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G.

5 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.

Yogesh Chandra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

16/02 /2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of this case from the Respondent No. 4.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Petitioner No. 4 to consider the application dated 01.09.20255 of the petitioner (Annexure P/1) and resolve the grievance of the petitioner by making payment of his leave cashment amount with interest as per law in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to take a proper action on application of the petitioner submitted to them by the petitioner (Annexure P/4 & P/5 respectively) to resolve the grievance of the petitioner.

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to make clear all the obstaclesin the way of payment of amount of leave encashment to the petitioner.

10.5 Any other relief which may be deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Cost of litigation may kindly be allowed.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Grade – II while working with the Respondent No. 4 on 31.07.2025 after attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that along with the retiral dues, petitioner was entitled for leave encashment, however, it was not paid to the petitioner and therefore, petitioner submitted representations which are not considered till date. He contended that one similarly situated employee namely, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma filed writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 7119/2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2022 directing the petitioner therein to make representation before the Respondent No. 3 therein, to be considered by the Respondent No. 3 therein and according to his instructions, the said Ajay Kumar Sharma was paid leave encashment.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that the claim of the petitioner is against the Respondent No. 4 for whom she is not appearing.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The claim of petitioner is with regard to leave encashment which is to be paid to an employee after retirement. Petitioner has not been paid the said amount and he has already submitted representation before the Respondent No. 4. In the aforementioned facts of the case, instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply from the respondents, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation along with all supporting documents before the Respondent No. 4 and in the event petitioner submits representation, Respondent No. 4 shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by t