1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10425 of 2025 1 - Manglu Ram Patel S/o Moti Ram Patel Aged About 76 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Bhatagaon, Dist. Raipur C.G. 2 - Keshav Ram Sahu S/o Alakh Ram Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 29, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Dist. Raipur C.G. 3 - Salik Ram Sahu S/o Dukalu Ram Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Kopedih Dist. Raipur C.G. 4 - Manohar Lal Sahu S/o Bandhu Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 63, Mathpurena, Dist. Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G. 3 - The Secretary, Water Resource Department Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G. 4 - The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Accounts And Treasury, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.04 15:05:41 +0530 2 5 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Division No. 3 Tilda, Dist. Raipur C.G. 6 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Division Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 7 - The Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resource Department, Abhanpur Canal Project, Sub Division Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur C.G. 8 - The Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Reservoir Project, Division, Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 04/09/2025 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 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 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