1 2025:CGHC:38061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8652 of 2025 1 - Prem Chandra Mishra S/o Satya Narayan Mishra, Aged About 62 Years R/o Irrigation Colony, Rampur, Distt - Korba (C.G.) (Retired Employee Claiming Leave Encashment). 2 - Kumar Das Baghel S/o Lagan Das, Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Pipar Para, Kohadiya, Charpara, Korba Distt - Korba (C.G.) (Retired Employee Claiming Leave Encashment) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Sector - 19, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Engineer, Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur, Distt - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Superintendent Engineer, Hasdeo Project Circle, Rampur Korba (C.G.) 7 - Executive Engineer, Water Management Division, Rampur-Korba, Distt - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Avinash Singh, Advocate. For State : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. 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 2 (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 3 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