1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9982 of 2025 1 - Kalyan Singh S/o Dhanesh Ram Aged About 71 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Gastitila, Post Dewarbhat, Tehsil Balod, District Balod C.G. 2 - Dewal Singh S/o Sukalu Ram Aged About 64 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Surripara, Ward No. 15, Balod, Post Balod, Tehsil Balod, District Balod C.G. 3 - Smt. Birjha Bai (Legal Heir) W/o Janaklal Aged About 69 Years A Wd/o Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Siwni, Post Siwni, Tehsil Balod, District Balod C.G. 4 - Maniram Netam (Legal Heir) S/o Pankuram Aged About 37 Years A S/o Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Araod, Post Latabod, Tehsil Balod, District Balod C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Accounts SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.26 18:00:54 +0530 2 And Treasury, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 5 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division Balod, District Balod C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 26/08/2025 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