1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10332 of 2025 1 - Rang Lal Dutta S/o Shri Jagdish Chand Dutta Aged About 64 Years (Retired Handpump Technician Workcharged Category, Public Health Engineering Department, Durg (Division) R/o Near Bajrang Bali Mandir, Ward No. 14, Plot No. 84, Shama Prasad Mukharji Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Indravati Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Raipur Zone, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur 4 - The Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Circle- Durg Circle, Chhattisgarh, District Durg 5 - The Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh, District Durg ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.09 11:28:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired employee of the respondents’ Departments and was working as Work Charged Contingency paid employee. 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 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 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 his 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 claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment passed in that 3 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