1 2025:CGHC:37531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8796 of 2025 1 - Smt. Meena Dhimar W/o Pitambar Lal Dhimar Aged About 58 Years R/o Irrigation Colony Rampur Korba, District Korba C.G. 2 - Chindhya Nagle S/o Jugal Kishor Nagle Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Hardoli Colony, Post Office Barginagar, District Jabalpur M.P. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Engineer, Hasdev Kachhar Water Resource Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Chief Engineer, Hasdev Ganga Kachhar, Water Resource Department Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 5 - Executive Engineer, E/m Heavy Machinery Division Water Resource Department Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Executive Engineer, Thermal Power Project Division Ambikapur, Through Division Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatapur C.G. ... Respondent(s) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 10:43:07 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 31/07/2025 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 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 3 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