1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8402 of 2025 1 - Ghanaram Kashyap S/o Johan Ram Kashyap Aged About 65 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Kesda, Post Kesda, Tehsil Simga, District Balaudabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Dhurwaram Sahu S/o Hiraman Sahu Aged About 62 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Ward No. 13, Naya Para, Utai, Tehsil Durg, District- Durg, C.G. 3 - Smt. Amlika Kanaujiya (Legal Heir) W/o Late Deepak Kanaujiya Aged About 42 Years The Widow Of Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Ward No. 29, Hospital Colony, Pachari Para, Post Durg, Tehsil Durg, District Durg, C.G. 4 - Sukpal Yadav S/o Suklu Yadav Aged About 67 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Janjgiri, Post Dhamdha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, C.G. 5 - Ajay Kumar Verma S/o Late H. P. Verma Aged About 62 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o H. No. 278, Sikolabhata Prem Nagar Durg, Post Durg, Tehsil Durg, District Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Accounts And Treasury, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 5 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Division No. 01, Durg Dist. Durg, C.G. 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, E/m Division Durg, Dist. Durg, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate. For State : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 01.08 .202 5 1. Learned counsel for petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee. The petitioner (s) 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 petitioner(s) have raised identical issue which may be allowed. He submits that at this stage the petitioner(s) may be permitted to submit detailed representation before the respondents/competent authority, who, in turn, 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 petitioner(s) is/are not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner(s) 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 petitioner(s), 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 petitioner(s) to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority. In the event, the petitioner(s) submits representation, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with the relevant rules and law and after verification of the service records of the petitioner(s) expeditiously preferably within the period of '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 inder