2025:CGHC:43531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9901 of 2025 1 - Vimlesh Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Balaram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Limha, Gidha, Post Office- Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. 2 - Tijauram Nirmalkar S/o Shri Bharat Lal Nirmalkar Aged About 62 Years R/o Takhatpur Road, Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 9, Pathariya, Tahsil And District Mungeli C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief, Department Of Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Atal Nagar, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Zone Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Division -Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. 6 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pensions Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 7 - Treasury Officer, District Treasury Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. …Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Mayur Khandelwal, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28.08.2025 Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.01 15:42:17 +0530 Wps 9901 of 2025 2 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are retired employees of the Public Health Engineering Department, and were working as Work Charged Contingency paid employees. It is further submitted that in light of judgment passed by this Court in WPS-3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel, and others Vs 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 respondent/ competent 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, petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma