1 2025:CGHC:8023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1067 of 2025 1 - Kunj Bihari Varma S/o Sunaram Kashyap Aged About 63 Years R/o M.No. A2 19, Sinchai Colony, Darri, District- Korba (C.G.)- 495450 2 - Banshi Lal Sahu S/o Govardhan Lal Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o- A1/31B, Sinchai Colony, Darri, Jamnipali, Ward No.- 35, District- Korba (C.G.)- 495450 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002 4 - Joint Director Pension And Account Treasury Department, Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Executive Engineer E And M, Minimata Bango Division, Machadoli, Headquarter- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.17 15:01:57 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing I.A. No.1, application for exemption from filing typed copies of some of the documents as he has filed typed and legible copies of the same. 3. In view of the above, I.A. No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 4. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Writ(s)/Order(s)/ Direction(s) calling for the entire records relating to the Petitioners case for its kind perusal. 10.2.That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Writisy Order(s) Direction(s) declaring the Petitioners entitled for the benefits of leave encashment accruing to them after regularisation of their services. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue Writ(s)/Order(s)/ Direction(s) against the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of leave encashment to the Petitioners. 10.4. Any other Relief(s)/ Direction(s)/ Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in 3 the facts and circumstances of the petitioners case may be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are retired employees of the respondent department, who were worked 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. 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 8. 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 representations 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 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 4 the period of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of the said representation. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh