1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4048 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rajin Bai Yadav W/o Rewa Ram Yadav Aged About 61 Years R/o Purani Basti, Thawait Mohalla, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Legal Heir Claiming Leave Encashment On Behalf Of Her Deceased Husband) 2 - Ganesh Ram Yadav S/o Jhadu Ram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Irrigation Colony, Darri, P.O- Jamnipali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Retired Employee Claiming Leave Encashment For Himself) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Engineer Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Superintendent Engineer Hasdeo Project Circle, Rampur/ Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Barrage Water Management Division, Rampur/ Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate. For State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 12.06 .202 5 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioners stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee. The petitioners were entitled for leave encashment but till date the respondents have not extended the benefit of leave encashment. He stated that an identical issue has already been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) on 30.09.2022. In the light of Faguvaram 2 (supra) the petitioner have raised identical issue which may be allowed. He submits that at this stage the petitioners may be permitted to submit detailed representation before the respondents/competent authority, who, in turn, may be directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously within specific period as fixed by this Court. 2. Learned State counsel submits that as the petitioners are not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner, at this stage the State is having no objection. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, without commenting anything on the merits this petition is disposed of in the light of judgment passed in Faguvaram Patel (Supra) reserving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority. In the event, the petitioners submit representation, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with the relevant rules and law and after verification of the service records of the petitioners expeditiously preferably within the period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of the such representation keeping in mind the decision passed in Faguvaram Patel (Supra). 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder