1 2025:CGHC:6220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 990 of 2025 1 - Rainu Ram S/o. Devdhar Aged About 69 Years Retired Driver, R/o Village Jugera, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.) 2 - Johan Ram Sinha S/o Nehru Ram Sinha Aged About 82 Years Retired Chowkidar, R/o Village Mokha, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Shyam Lal Thakur S/o Tijau Ram Aged About 64 Years Retired Helper, R/o Village Tekapara, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Jayantri Bai W/o Late Pardeshi Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Gondpal, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.) 5 - Suresh Kumar Pandey S/o Bhalchand Pandy Aged About 70 Years Retired Time Keeper, R/o Village Paarras, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.) 6 - Yadav Bhushan Baghel S/o Badri Prasad Baghel Aged About 71 Years Retired Driver, R/o Village Bitkuli, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary, Public Work Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Work Department Raipur District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department Circle Durg, District Durg (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.06 10:42:20 +0530 2 4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Work Department Circle Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Public Work Department H/m Division Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 6 - Joint Director Kosh Lekha And Pension Department Durg District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the direction for the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of leave encashment.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.1, 2, 5, 6 and widow of petitioner No.3 are retired employees of the respondent department, who were working as work charged employees. He 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 4. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as well as wife of the petitioner No.4 and it is also not reflected as to whether the husband of petitioner have completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representation before the concerned 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 representations, 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 the said representation. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh