1 2025:CGHC:5171 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 822 of 2025 1 - Sukhdas Banjare S/o Kanhaiyalal Aged About 69 Years R/o Telibandha, Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Ganeshram S/o Firanta Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Dabrapara, Chhunabhatti, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Silvaram S/o Niranjan Sahu Aged About 74 Years R/o Dr. Rajendra Prasad Ward, Fundhar, Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mahesh Yadav S/o Ramprasad Yadav Aged About 66 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Devpuri, Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 5 - Bhukhanlal S/o Visheshar Aged About 74 Years R/o Boriakala, Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6 - Smt. Milobai Yadav W/o Bishru Ram Yadav Aged About 74 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 7 - Smt. Hemabai W/o Paleshwar Kumar Aged About 68 Years R/o Devendra Nagar, Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 8 - Jivrakhan Lal Nishad S/o Devnath Nishad Aged About 71 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Devpuri, Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 9 - Santosh Yadav S/o Late Guharam Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Telibandha Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, 3 Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of leave encashment/earned leave/surrender leave within stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass orders as per annexure P/2 as the case of the petitioners are similar and they are also entitled to get benefit of earned leave after completing more than 10 years of service. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper as per the nature of the case. An 4 affidavit in support of this writ petition is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners No. 1 to 8 and father of petitioner No. 9 are retired employees of the respondent department, petitioners No. 1 to 8 were working as worked charged/ contingency paid employee and father of petitioner No. 9 was working as worked charged/ contingency paid employee in the Public Works Department. He further submits that in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022, the petitioners are entitled for leave encashment. 3. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents has not been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioners No. 1 to 8 and father of petitioner No. 9 have completed the minimum period of the service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 5. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent / 5 competent authority within the period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (Supra), his claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra) expeditiously preferably within the period of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of the said representation. 6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat