1 2025:CGHC:43543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10084 of 2025 1 - Hirde Ram S/o Ramhu Ram Yadav Aged About 63 Years Retired Labour From The Office Of Executive Engineer Water Resource Management Rudri, R/o Village Danitola, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 2 - Sushil Kumar Kesharwani S/o Pannalal Kesharwani Aged About 63 Years Retired Pump Operator R/o Dulari Nagar, Ward No. 20 Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department Raipur District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Jalasay Pariyojana, Water Resources Department Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Management Rudri Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer, E/ M Heaving Machinery Division Mahanadi Jalasay Pariyojana Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swapnil Keshari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.29 10:46:57 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/08/2025 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 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