1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8820 of 2025 1 - Ramdev Prasad S/o Shri Baijnath Ram, Aged About 69 Years Retired Sthal Sahayak At Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Manendragarh, District Mcb, (Chhattisgarh) R/o Ward No. 10, Bazar Para, Kusmi, Tahsil Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Engineer In Chief, Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Ambikapur Zone, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. 5 - Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.02 11:23:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01/08/2025 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 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 3 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 sagrika