1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8106 of 2025 1 - Chandraprakash Sahu S/o Budhram Sahu, Aged About 62 Years R/o Vaibhav Nagar, Gram Post Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Khuman Singh Sahu, S/o Sadhuram, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Darri, Post Kosmarra, Tahsil Bhakha (Ra), District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Sushila Bai, W/o Late Gopal Ram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post Doma, Tahsil Bhakha (Ra), District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Jalashaya Pariyojna Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Jalashaya, Pariyojna Bandh Division No. 2, Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Executive Engineer, Vidyut/ Yantriki Light Machinery Nalkup Gate Division Water Resources, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.07.19 14:25:51 +0530 2 7 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department Division Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 18/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are retired employees of the respondents’ Departments and were working as Work Charged Contingency paid employees. 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 petitioners are also entitled for leave encashment. 2. Learned State counsel would submit 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 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 petitioners 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 3 this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), their 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 Alok