1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4362 of 2025 1 - Satyanarayan Tiwari S/o. Late Jhadu Ram Tiwari Aged About 63 Years Retired Nalkoop Chalak, Posted At Office Of S.D.O. (E And M) Light Machinery Nalkoop And Gate Sub Division Sakri, Water Resources Department, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Shyamla D/o. M.R. Chandrashekhar Aged About 63 Years Retired Generator Operator, Posted At Office Of Chief Engineer Minimata Hasdev Bango Pariyojna, Bilaspur, Water Resources Department, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Hasdev Kachhar Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer (E And M) Light Machinery Nalkoop And Gate Division Sakri, Bilaspur, Water Resources Department, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Engineer Minimata Hasdev Bango Pariyojna, Bilaspur, Water Resources Department, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Joint Director Pension And Account Treasury Department, Bilaspur Division, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Nilu Sinha on behalf of Shri FS Khare, Advocate. For State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 18.06 .202 5 1. Learned counsel for petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee. The petitioner (s) 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 2 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 (supra) the petitioner(s) have raised identical issue which may be allowed. He submits that at this stage the petitioner(s) may be permitted to submit detailed representation before the respondents/competent authority, who, in turn, 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 petitioner(s) is/are not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner(s) 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 petitioner(s), 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 petitioner(s) to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority. In the event, the petitioner(s) submits 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 petitioner(s) 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