1 2025:CGHC:29356 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6384 of 2025 1 - Ram Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Bishal Das Manikpuri, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Ward No. 10, Post- Magarlod, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rambha Bai W/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Gattasilli, Ward No. 9, Gattasilli, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Engineer-In-Chief Water Resource Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Capital Complex Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Executive Engineer Water Resource Department, Dhamtari, Code No. 90, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Divisional Office, Raipur Division, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01-07-2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee. The petitioners 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 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 petitioners have raised identical issue which may be allowed. He submits that at this stage the petitioners may be permitted to submit detailed representation before the respondents/competent authority, who, in turn, may 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 petitioners are not pressing this petition on merits and are only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioners, 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 petitioners, 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 petitioners to make detailed representation(s) before the concerned respondent/competent authority. In the event, the petitioners submit representation(s), the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with the relevant rules and law and after verification of the service records of the petitioners expeditiously preferably within the period of 3 '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 Aadil