1 2025:CGHC:39373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8523 of 2025 1 - Hari Ram Yadav S/o Suklal Yadav Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Rajmahal Chawk, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan, North Block Naya Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works, Department (E/ M) Sub Division ) Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer Public Works, Department , Division Durg Tahsil And District - Dug (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Public Works, Department , Division Kawardha, Tahsil And District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A. G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired employee of the respondents’ Departments and was working as Work Charged Contingency paid employee. It is further submitted that in light ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.08.08 10:36:00 +0530 2 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 Alok