1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9862 of 2025 1 - Mansay S/o Budhai Aged About 65 Years Retired Gangman From The Office Of Executive Engineer P.W.D. (Bh/road) Division- Ramanujganj, R/o Village-Dhondha, Tehsil- Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Babu Lal S/o Sonu Aged About 69 Years Retired Labour From The Office Of Executive Engineer P.W.D. (Bh/road) Division- Ambikapur, R/o Village Gonda, Tehsil- Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Late Sukhan Ram Aged About 50 Years The Petitioner Is Legal Heirs Of Deceased Employee Sukhan Ram (Driver) R/o Village Saranpara, Tehsil Lamgaon, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer Public Work Department, Mandal Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Public Work Department, (Bhawan And Sadak) Division Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Public Work Department, (Bhawan And Sadak) Division Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swapnil Keshri, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.08.23 12:14:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 22/08/2025 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 3 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 Alok