2025:CGHC:44250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10219 of 2025 1 - Dhanendra Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Gulab Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Village And Post Semra Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 4 - The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 5 - Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Minimata Bango Canal Division No. 6, Nandelibhata- Sakti, District Sakti C.G. ---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired employee of the Water Resource Department, and was working as Work Charged Contingency paid employee. 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 Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.02 10:47:23 +0530 Wps 10219 of 2025 2 Chhattisgarh and others), and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022, present petitioner is also entitled for leave encashment. 2. Learned State counsel would submit that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioner, and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner has 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 petitioner 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 his/her claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), his/her 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