1 2025:CGHC:7440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1143 of 2025 1 - Smt. Girja Bai Sahu W/o Shobha Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Mokhla Ranandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lalit Kumar Tripathi S/o Chandra Shekhar Tripathi Aged About 70 Years House No. 555/3, Word No. 03, Behind Deshmuckh Hotel, Pyarelal Chowk, Chikhli, Rajandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chandulal Yadav S/o- Kartik Yadav Aged About 62 Years Joratari Kanketara, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shobha Ram Sahu S/o Kripa Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Mokhla, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bhal Ram Lodhi S/o Bhav Singh Verma Aged About 62 Years R/o- House No. 169, Dumardih Khurd Post, Khairjhiti, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Raj Kumar Verma S/o Bhuneshwar Verma Aged About 62 Years R/o- House No. 77, Ward No. 11, Rengakathera, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Public Works Department, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.17 19:36:12 +0530 2 2 - Joint Director Treasury And Pension Directorate, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Enginner In Chief Public Works Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Superintendent Engineer Works Department, Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sub Divisional Officer, Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Singh, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, learned counsel petitioner as well as Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. That, the records pertaining to the cases of the petitioners may be kindly called for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 3 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to release the leave encashment benefits to petitioners account with applicable interest, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective petitioners were initially appointed on temporary basis, on the posts of Time Keeper, Gangman, Permanent Labour under the Public Works Department. The petitioners were employed continuously by the respondents without break, as their services were continued by the respondents every year or in several years up till the regularisation of petitioners within the permanent establishment. The petitioners were appointed initially during year 1984 onwards, also their services continued on yearly basis without any break. As per the Chhattisgarh Work Charged And Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977, petitioners are entitled for benefits of leave encashment, as there is no prohibition in release of leave encashment amounts to petitioners under the Rules, therefore, 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. 4 4. 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. 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 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 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. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi