1 2025:CGHC:1654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 174 of 2025 1 - Bisahat Ram Sahu S/o Chain Singh Sahu Aged About 74 Years Retired Sthal Sahayak, Public Works Department, Division Balod, (C.G.) R/o Village And Post- Deori Bangala, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Suraj Verma W/o Late Jagdish Prasad Verma Aged About 72 Years (Husband Of The Petitioner Was Retired Sthal Sahayak, Public Works Department, Division- Bemetara), (C.G.) R/o Village And Post- Koliya, Ward No. 3, Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Smt. Shanti Bhatt W/o Late Chhannu Lal Bhatt Aged About 68 Years Husband Of The Petitioner Was Retired Sthal Sahayak, Public Works Department, Division- Balod, (C.G.) R/o Deori Bangala, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Maya Devi Sahu W/o Late Bhupat Lal Sonwani Aged About 57 Years Husband Of The Petitioner Was Sthal Sahayak, Work Charged, Public Works Department, Division- Balod, (C.G.) R/o Balod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Sugrotin Bai Thakur W/o Late Tejram Thakur Aged About 50 Years Husband Of The Petitioner Was Chowkidar Workcharged, Public Works Department, Division- Balod, (C.G.) R/o Balod, Distt.- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhwan, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division- Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division- Balod, Distt.- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to grant leave encashment and surrender leave to the petitioners with interest in view of the order dated 30.09.2022 in WPS no. 3870/2021 Faguvaram Patel & ors. Vs State of CG & ors). 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 was initially appointed/engaged on 12.03.1973, retired on 3 28.02.2010, the husband of the petitioner No.2 was appointed/engaged on 13.05.1975 and retired on 30.04.2008 and died on 09.05.2014, husband of the petitioner No.3 was initially appointed/engaged on 22.08.1973 and worked upto 20.12.2011 and died on 20.12.2011 during service, husband of the petitioner No.4 was initially appointed on 31.01.1997 and worked upto 18.04.2000 and during service he died on 18.04.2000, husband of petitioner No.5 was initially appointed on 16.11.1989 worked up to 05.01.1997 and during service he died on 05.01.1997. As such the petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2, 3, 4 and 5 were worked as work charged/ contingency paid employees in the respondents department 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 4 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