1 2025:CGHC:2404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 328 of 2025 1 - Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Punayram Yadav Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. 27 Gandhi Nagar Ward No. 02, Behind Nari Niketan Dantewada (N P) Distt. South Bastar Dandewada (C.G.). 2 - Suklu Yadav S/o Sunna, Aged About 63 Years R/o Block Para Geedam, Distt. South Bastar Dantewda, C.G. 3 - Ramdeen Barman (R.D. Barman) S/o Late Shri Gabbuji Barman Aged About 70 Years R/o Indira Gandhi Ward No. 12 Behind Of State Bank Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). 4 - Rup Singh Thakur S/o Laxamn Singh Thakur Aged About 68 Years R/o House No. 104, Rajenra Nagar Ward No. 15, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Engineer In Chief P.H.E. Department, District Raipur (C.G.). GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.01.15 20:07:36 +0530 2 3 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - The Chief Engineer, P.H.E. Department, Division Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.). 5 - The Superintendent Engineer, P.H.E. Department, Division Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.). 6 - The Executive Engineer, P.H.E. Department, Division Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 7 - Account Officer, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. Heard Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Since the matter is heard and decided finally, as such, default pointed out by the Registry is ignored. 3 3. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “(i)To issue an appropriate writ or order to direct the respondent’s authority to grant the benefits of leave encashment in favour of the petitioners. (ii)Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances including award of cost of the petition may also be granted.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are retired employees of the respondent department, who were work charged employees working in P.H.E. Department. He 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. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 7. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representation before the concerned 4 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 the said representation. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE gouri