1 2025:CGHC:24845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4867 of 2025 1 - Dhanaram Halba S/o Parasram Kashyap, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village- Raveli, Post- Loharsingh, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - Loknath Sahu S/o Mangtu Ram Sahu, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village- Dhursa, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Hirmat Bai W/o Late Butkar Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village And Post- Dhursa, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources and Bhu-Jal Sarveksan Division, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17-06-2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees, petitioners are entitled for leave encashment but till date respondents have not extended the benefit of leave encashment to petitioners. Identical issue came up for hearing before this Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Court in W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021, wherein petitioners therein have raised identical issue which was allowed in their favour. He submits that at this stage, petitioners may be permitted to submit representation in light of the decision in case of Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., in W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 decided on 30.09.2022 and respondents be directed to decide the representations to be submitted by petitioners expeditiously within specified time. 2. Learned State counsel submits that as the petitioners are not pressing this petition on merits and are only seeking a direction to decide the representation(s) to be submitted by petitioners, at this stage, he is having no objection. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners, this petition is disposed off permitting petitioners to submit representation(s) before respondents authorities and if such representations are submitted by the petitioner, respondents authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the representation(s). 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil