1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9657 of 2025 1 - Brijesh Singh S/o Late Saheb Singh, Aged About 63 Years R/o Post- Mahant, Bazar Para Ward No. 10, P.S.- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Petitioner Retired On 31/05/2025 From The Post Of Mechanic Grade-3) 2 - Sunder Lal Kurmi S/o Shri Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Gram And P.O. Tilai, Dongiyapara Ward No. 15, P.S.- Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Petitioner Retired On 30/06/2025 Form The Post Of Jeep Driver) 3 - Dhaneshwar Chauhan S/o Shri Mansai Chauhan Aged About 62 Years R/o Post- Portha, Th. Shakti, District- Shakti (C.G.) (Petitioner Retired On 31/07/2024 From The Post Of Helper) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer, Mini Mata Hasdeo Bango Project, Water Resource Department, Distt - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Engineer, Hasdeo Project Division, Water Resource Department, Rampur, Korba, Distt - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division, Water Resource Department, Janjgir, Distt - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.20 10:27:08 +0530 2 6 - Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage Water Management Division Korba District Korba, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are retired employees of the respondents’ Departments and were working as Work Charged Contingency paid employees. 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 petitioners are also entitled for leave encashment. 2. Learned State counsel would submit that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners, and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioners have 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 petitioners to make a detailed representation before the concerned respondents/competent 3 authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), their 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 sagrika