1 2025:CGHC:29759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6771 of 2025 1 - Mahavir Ram S/o Shri Ronha Ram Aged About 62 Years Retired Chowkidar At Executive Engineer Water Resource Division Jashpu, District - Jashpur (C.G.) R/o Village Gamhariya Tahsil Jashpur District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Warte Resource Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Warte Resource, Shivnath Bhawan New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer (Hasdeo Ganga Basin) Warte Resource, Department Ambikapur, Zone District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Warte Resource, Division Jashpur District - Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhu Lal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 02/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired employee of the respondents’ Departments and was working as Work SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.07.03 11:02:57 +0530 2 Charged Contingency paid employee. It is further submitted that in light of judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022, present petitioner is also entitled for leave encashment. 2. Learned State counsel would submit that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioner, and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner has completed the minimum service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the concerned respondents/competent authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate his claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), his claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment passed in that case expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the said representation. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika