1 2025:CGHC:32452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6961 of 2025 1 - Keval Ram Verma S/o Shri Jhabbu Ram Verma Aged About 72 Years R/o University Banjari Nagar, Nearby Water Tank, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Ram Narayan Thakur S/o Shri Mehattar Ram Thakur Aged About 70 Years Village And Post Achholi, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod C.G. 3 - Siyaram Yadav S/o Shri Dilip Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o H-13, Mandi Colony, Irrigation Department, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Lalit Singh Thakur S/o Shri Gaukaran Singh Thakur Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Kachhar, House No. 75, Goutiya Bada, Mahavir Ward, Post Office, Datrengi, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. 5 - Smt Sharda Nishad W/o Late Shri Sanjay Kumar Nishad Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 496/69, Ganesh Nagar, Behind Raipura Hospital, District Raipur C.G. 6 - Mrinal Samaddar S/o Shri Murari Mohan Samaddar Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 20, Ward No. 3, Bangali Camp, Kirandul, Post Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada C.G. 7 - Prakash Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Niranjan Singh Yadav Aged About 67 Years R/o 254, Veer Savarkar Ward No. 5, Basmunda Para, Jagdalpur, Bastar, District Bastar C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 2 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department Raipur Division- 1, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension Raipur Division, District Raipur C.G. 4 - The Executive Engineer (E And M) Light Machinery, Nalkoop And Gate Division, Water Resources Department Raipur Ocean Chowk, Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 11-07-2025 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. She 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. She 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 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 submits 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 'three months' from the date of receipt of the such representation(s) 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