1 2025:CGHC:43547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10089 of 2025 1 - Sovind Ram S/o Late Udhoram Aged About 62 Years R/o Baksara, Post - Pantora, Tahsil And Police Station - Baloda, Distt - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh (Retired Employee Claiming Leave Encashment For Himself) 2 - Smt. Fulmat Yadav W/o Late Suddhu Ram Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Nagoi Khar, Darri, Post - Jamnipali Korba, Distt - Korba Chhattisgarh (Legal Heir Claiming Leave Encashment Of Her Husband) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Secretary Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Engnieer Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur, Distt - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Engineer Hasdeo Project Circle, Rampur/korba, Distt - Korba Chhattisgarh ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.08.28 19:18:15 +0530 2 7 - Executive Engineer Haseo Barrage, Water Management Division, Rampur/korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akanksha Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. S. Saini, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No. 1 claiming leave encashment for himself and petitioner No. 2 is the wife of the deceased employee. The petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 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 Alok