1 2025:CGHC:9884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1457 of 2025 1 - Chandrika Prasad Kujur S/o Mangal Sai Aged About 66 Years Retired Truck Driver From Office Of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division No. 1 Ambikapur, R/o Village - Jajga, Tahsil - Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Indravati Tirkey W/o Vifan Tirkey Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Raghunathpur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) The Petitioner Is Wife Of Deceased Employee Late Vifan Tirkey, Who Retired From Office Of Executive Engineer Barnai Canal Division, Ambikapur, Since Above Division Abolish The Service Record Handed Over To Executive Engineer, Division No. 1, Ambikapur ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief. Water Resprces Department Shivnath Mandal, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur , District - Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Ganga Kachhar Water Resources Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division No. 1 Ambikapur, District Surguja,(C.G.) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.28 16:38:17 +0530 2 5 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division , Balrampur District - Balrampur, Ramanujganj, (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Shrivas, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Bhupendra Shrivas, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the direction for the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of leave encashement.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioners No.2 were engaged as Gangman in respondent department and they were granted salary as monthly basis since initial date of appointment under the work charge and contingency paid employees, as per circular issued by state government, the services of petitioners are governed by Chhattisgarh irrigation Department Contingency Paid Employees 3 Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules and upon attaining age of superannuation the they have been retired from services. The respondent authorities granted pension and gratuity to petitioner after retirement, but benefit of leave encashment has not been granted to petitioner, the respondent authorities not count all service rendered by petitions in the department for grant of gratuity. The petitioners are governed by the Chhattisgarh Work-Charged / Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977 (herein after the Rules, 1977) which has been made by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and has been adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh under the exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners are entitled for benefits of leave encashment, as there is no prohibition in release of leave encashment amounts to petitioners under the Rules, therefore, leave credited in the account of the work charged/contingency paid employees deserved to get encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners are entitled for leave encashment. 4. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioners have completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners 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 their claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (surpa), their 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 their said representation. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi