1 2025:CGHC:23660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4105 of 2025 1 - Mansai S/o Shri Baldev Aged About 62 Years Retired 'akushal Gangman Shramik' At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, R/o Village Peta, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Bifaiya S/o Shri Budhiya Ram Aged About 66 Years Retired 'akushal Gangman Shramik' At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Pathalgaon, Division Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh R/o Village Ambadand Raikera, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Pathalgaon, Division Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate and Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.13 18:55:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are retired employees of the respondents’ Departments and were working as Work Charged Contingency paid employees. It is further submitted that in light of judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022, present petitioners are also entitled for leave encashment. 2. Learned State counsel would submit 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 service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed representation before the concerned respondents/competent authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), their claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment passed in that case 3 expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the said representation. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved