1 2025:CGHC:6215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 980 of 2025 1 - Mangiya Ram S/o Sundar Singh Aged About 69 Years Retired Labour, R/o Village And Post Saamtara, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhagwan Patel S/o Bhaiya Ram Patel Aged About 69 Years Retired Labour, R/o Village Deklawan, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Late Makhan Ram Shinde Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Dudhawa, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Sonbati Bai W/o Late Soapsingh Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Devdonggar, Post Saamtara, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sona Bai Shinde W/o Late Buddhu Ram Shinde Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Dudhawa, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kuber Singh S/o Ayatu Ram Aged About 66 Years Retired Labour, R/o Village Sawtara, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department Sector- 9, Atal Nagar, RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.17 19:33:04 +0530 2 Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojna Department Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer Water Management Division Rudri Code No. 38 Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojna, Sub Division Dudhawa, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Senior District Treasury Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel petitioner as well as Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondents. 2. Since the matter is heard and decided finally, therefore, I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for exemption from filing typed copy is allowed. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief/s: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 issue the direction for the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of leave encashment.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective petitioners were engaged as Gangman in respondents’ department, their salary was charge in project, they were granted salary on monthly basis since initial dated of appointmnet under the worked as work charged/ contingency paid employees, therefore, the petitioners are entitiled for retire benefit, leave credited in the account of the work charged / contingency paid employees deserved to get encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 5. Learned State counsel submits 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 period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 7. 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 4 respondent/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 (surpa), their 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 their said representation. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi