1 2025:CGHC:37532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8795 of 2025 1 - Gopichand Meshram S/o Shri Baldev Ram Meshram Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Parsapin, Post Rajpur Tehsil Nagri District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Rampyaru Sonwani S/o Shri Hirdey Ram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Pirid, Post Chourel Tehsil Gunderdehi, District - Balod (C.G.) 3 - Prahlad Ram Nishad S/o Nathu Ram Nishad Aged About 70 Years R/o Village And Post Naragaon, Tehsil And District - Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department Shivnath Mandal, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer Mahanadi Jalasay Pariyojna, Dam Division No. 02, Rudri District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Water Management Division Rudri Code No. 38 District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Mahanadi Jalasay Pariyojna Sub Division No. 5 Sankara, Tehsil Nagri District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 10:43:08 +0530 2 6 - Sub Divisional Officer Water Management Sub Divisional No. 10, Dudhawa, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, 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 3 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